Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Tibor Digana]

What surefire tag exactly?

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Christian Schulte [via Maven] <
ml-node+s40175n5898195...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Am 02/12/17 um 00:59 schrieb Michael Osipov:
>
> > Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte:
> >> Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> >>> The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been
> >>> retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing,
> >>> MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity. @Michael: Do you have a FreeBSD box or something else
> >> BSD at hand? Can you build the surefire tag of that version locally
> >> without any issues? I am getting IT failures on OpenBSD here. On
> Jenkins
> >> nothing is failing. Would be interesting how that looks on FreeBSD.
> >
> > Yes, sure. FreeBSD is my main Unix test platform. So you want me to run
> > ITs with MNG-6169, is that right?
>
> No. A surefire build of the tag corresponding to the version in core.
> That build will run various surefire related ITs. Can you build that
> surefire tag successfully?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
>
>
>
> --
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/I-think-we-are-ready-for-3-5-0-alpha-1-
> tp5897626p5898195.html
> To start a new topic under Maven Developers, email
> ml-node+s40175n142166...@n5.nabble.com
> To unsubscribe from Maven Developers, click here
> 
> .
> NAML
> 
>




--
View this message in context: 
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/I-think-we-are-ready-for-3-5-0-alpha-1-tp5897626p5898200.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/12/17 um 00:59 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte:
>> Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov:
>>> The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been
>>> retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing,
>>> MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.
>>
>> Out of curiosity. @Michael: Do you have a FreeBSD box or something else
>> BSD at hand? Can you build the surefire tag of that version locally
>> without any issues? I am getting IT failures on OpenBSD here. On Jenkins
>> nothing is failing. Would be interesting how that looks on FreeBSD.
> 
> Yes, sure. FreeBSD is my main Unix test platform. So you want me to run 
> ITs with MNG-6169, is that right?

No. A surefire build of the tag corresponding to the version in core.
That build will run various surefire related ITs. Can you build that
surefire tag successfully?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov:

The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been
retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing,
MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.


Out of curiosity. @Michael: Do you have a FreeBSD box or something else
BSD at hand? Can you build the surefire tag of that version locally
without any issues? I am getting IT failures on OpenBSD here. On Jenkins
nothing is failing. Would be interesting how that looks on FreeBSD.


Yes, sure. FreeBSD is my main Unix test platform. So you want me to run 
ITs with MNG-6169, is that right?



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been 
> retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, 
> MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.

Out of curiosity. @Michael: Do you have a FreeBSD box or something else
BSD at hand? Can you build the surefire tag of that version locally
without any issues? I am getting IT failures on OpenBSD here. On Jenkins
nothing is failing. Would be interesting how that looks on FreeBSD.

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte:
>> Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov:
>>> Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte:
 Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review 
>> through
>> and then cut alpha-1
>>
>> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
>> focus that on shaking out bugs.
>>
>> Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
>> which point it should only be serious bug fixes)
>>
>> Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release
>>
>> I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better 
>> terms
>
> Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
> MNG-5967 Dependency updates
> MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
   ^
 This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
 been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
 Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
 upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
 still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?
>>>
>>> I haven't merged them yet and won't without any. I plan to split this
>>> ticket up to three.
>>>
>>> What is the impact going to be if all ITs pass? MPLUGIN 3.5 has already
>>> been released and you fixed an issue stopped us from upgrading to 3.5.
>>
>> Last time I wanted to upgrade the maven-plugin-plugin in the Maven
>> parent, Robert asked me to revert due to an outstanding issue with 3.5.
>> Are you sure the ITs are running with that plugin version? You'll need
>> to update a lot of plugin sources in the ITs to add missing Javadoc
>> descriptions everyhwere. Without that, the IT plugins cannot be build.
> 
> MNG-5968 has been drastically reduced to trivial updates. It been split 
> as agreed with Robert. ITs pass. Waiting for an argeement for FIx-3.5.0.

It's just updating some plugins used to build Maven itself. No need to
ask for anything here. If Maven can be build without issues, no need to
ask anyone for confirmation, IMHO. FIX-3.5.0 seconded.

> 
> The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been 
> retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, 
> MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.

I am running into issues with recent surefire versions sporadically.
Maybe we better keep the default version unchanged or we risk JIRA
issues to be filed. Maybe not that bad. Let's see if others are running
into the same surefire issues I am running into.

Someone already verified there are no open blocker issues filed in JIRA
for the new default plugin versions? Should I do that?

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:19 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates

  ^
Not sure about it. Surefire plugin should not be upgraded, IMHO. For the
site plugin upgrade, the site.xml descriptors need updating, AFAIK. Are
the site.xml descriptors prepared for that plugin version already?


I now ran MNG-6169 on master with "mvn site -Preporting". It did without 
failures, though it consumes a lot of memory and Javadoc in classes has 
a lot of issues.


Michael


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates

  ^
This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?


I haven't merged them yet and won't without any. I plan to split this
ticket up to three.

What is the impact going to be if all ITs pass? MPLUGIN 3.5 has already
been released and you fixed an issue stopped us from upgrading to 3.5.


Last time I wanted to upgrade the maven-plugin-plugin in the Maven
parent, Robert asked me to revert due to an outstanding issue with 3.5.
Are you sure the ITs are running with that plugin version? You'll need
to update a lot of plugin sources in the ITs to add missing Javadoc
descriptions everyhwere. Without that, the IT plugins cannot be build.


MNG-5968 has been drastically reduced to trivial updates. It been split 
as agreed with Robert. ITs pass. Waiting for an argeement for FIx-3.5.0.


The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been 
retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, 
MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now.


Michael


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

[GitHub] maven-surefire issue #142: SUREFIRE-1330: Import provider code donated by JU...

[Tibor17]

Github user Tibor17 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/142
  
@britter 
Sure I will do it, no problem.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates

  ^
This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?


I haven't merged them yet and won't without any. I plan to split this
ticket up to three.

What is the impact going to be if all ITs pass? MPLUGIN 3.5 has already
been released and you fixed an issue stopped us from upgrading to 3.5.


Last time I wanted to upgrade the maven-plugin-plugin in the Maven
parent, Robert asked me to revert due to an outstanding issue with 3.5.
Are you sure the ITs are running with that plugin version? You'll need
to update a lot of plugin sources in the ITs to add missing Javadoc
descriptions everyhwere. Without that, the IT plugins cannot be build.


I see what you are after, I will simply prepare a branch and we'll see 
wether this works at all. No obligations.


Michael


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte:
>> Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
>>> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
 I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
 and then cut alpha-1

 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
 focus that on shaking out bugs.

 Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
 which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

 Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

 I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms
>>>
>>> Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
>>> MNG-5967 Dependency updates
>>> MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
>>   ^
>> This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
>> been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
>> Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
>> upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
>> still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?
> 
> I haven't merged them yet and won't without any. I plan to split this 
> ticket up to three.
> 
> What is the impact going to be if all ITs pass? MPLUGIN 3.5 has already 
> been released and you fixed an issue stopped us from upgrading to 3.5.

Last time I wanted to upgrade the maven-plugin-plugin in the Maven
parent, Robert asked me to revert due to an outstanding issue with 3.5.
Are you sure the ITs are running with that plugin version? You'll need
to update a lot of plugin sources in the ITs to add missing Javadoc
descriptions everyhwere. Without that, the IT plugins cannot be build.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:19 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates

  ^
Not sure about it. Surefire plugin should not be upgraded, IMHO. For the
site plugin upgrade, the site.xml descriptors need updating, AFAIK. Are
the site.xml descriptors prepared for that plugin version already? I'd
say -1 to changing the plugin management in the 4.0.0 super POM. Let's
not touch those versions but remove the whole plugin management in 3.5.1.


I'd rather wait for SUREFIRE 2.19.2. As far as I remember, Hervé and I 
did that, but I will run the site phase again. I am highly +1 on 
removing plugin management from the POM.


Michael



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte:

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates

  ^
This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?


I haven't merged them yet and won't without any. I plan to split this 
ticket up to three.


What is the impact going to be if all ITs pass? MPLUGIN 3.5 has already 
been released and you fixed an issue stopped us from upgrading to 3.5.


Michael


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Version ranges and snapshots

[Jon Harper]

Hi,
I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNGSITE-300 to improve the
documentation of the version order.
Cheers,
Jon

Jon

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jon Harper  wrote:

> Hi Hervé,
> thanks. I agree that the intro is now better, but I think we need to
> describe the order more precisely. The problem is that the order is quite
> complex, so maybe this can be moved to another main apt page (different
> than the designs docs (they are not documentation)
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning or
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Dependency+Mediation+and+Conflict+
> Resolution, or javadoc (it changes to often, too tied to the
> implementation) https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.3.1/maven-artifact/apidocs/
> org/apache/maven/artifact/versioning/ComparableVersion.html)
>
> Anyway, here's the "simplest" description I could come up with regarding
> the algorithm to select the effective version. This is a first draft, so
> whole parts could be changed. Hopefully something good comes out of it.
>
> Regards,
> Jon
>
> Index: pom.apt
> ===
> --- pom.apt (révision 1668633)
> +++ pom.apt (copie de travail)
> @@ -402,8 +402,18 @@
>  *** {Dependency Version Requirement Specification}
>
>Dependencies' <<>> element define version requirements, used
> to compute effective dependency
> -  version. Version requirements have the following syntax:
> +  version. The effective dependency version is the highest version
> (lexicographically
> +  according to the presence of a Soft Requirement, and then Versionning
> Order) of the set of available
> +  artifacts, intersected with all declared version requirement ranges.
>
> +  Version requirements syntax:
> +version_requirement = element ( "," element )* # a version
> requirement is a comma-separated set of at least 1 element
> +element = maven_coordinate | range # an element is either a plain
> maven coordinate or a range
> +range = range_open (maven_coordinate)? "," (maven_coordinate)?
> range_close # all versions between optional low and high boundaries; a
> missing boundary means -/+ Infinity
> +range_open  = "[" | "(" # "[" includes the  low boundary, "("
> excludes the  low boundary
> +range_close = "]" | ")" # "]" includes the high boundary, ")"
> excludes the high boundary
> +
> +  Version requirements semantics:
>* <<<1.0>>>: "Soft" requirement on 1.0 (just a recommendation, if it
> matches all other ranges for the dependency)
>
>* <<<[1.0]>>>: "Hard" requirement on 1.0
> @@ -420,6 +430,38 @@
>
>* <<<(,1.1),(1.1,)>>>: this excludes 1.1 (for example if it is known
> not to work in combination with this library)
>
> +  Versionning order:
> +The maven coordinate is tokenized on ".", "-" and the transitions
> between digits/character
> +(equivalent to a "-" character). Empty tokens are replaced with "0".
> +This gives a sequence of version numbers (numeric tokens) and version
> qualifiers (non-numeric tokens)
> +with "." or "-" prefixes.  The trailing "null" prefix values are
> removed: 0 for numbers, "" and "final" and "ga" for qualifiers.
> +The order is the lexicographical order on this sequence of prefixed
> tokens, the shorter one
> +padded with enough "null" values with matching prefix to have the
> same length as the longer one.
> +The prefixed token order is:
> +* if the prefix is the same, then compare the token:
> +  * Numeric tokens have the natural order.
> +  * Non-numeric ("qualifiers") tokens have the alphabetical order,
> except for the following tokens which come first in this order:
> +  "alpha" = "a" \< "beta" = "b" \< "milestone" = "m" \< "rc" = "cr" \<
> +  "snapshot" \< "" = "final" = "ga" \< "sp"
> +* else ".qualifier" < "-qualifier" < "-number" < ".number"
> +
> +  Examples:
> +* "1" = "1.0.0" < 1.0.1 (number padding)
> +* "1-snapshot" < "1" < "1-sp" (qualifier padding, remember the null
> value for qualifiers has special order)
> +* "1-foo2" = "1-foo-2" < "1-foo10" = "1-foo-10" (transition correctly
> "switches" back to numeric order)
> +* "1.foo" < "1-foo" < "1-1" < "1.1"
> +* "1.0" = "1-0" = "1" = "1-" = "1-ga" = "1-final" (removing of
> trailing "null" values)
> +* "1.sp.1" < "1-.1"  (empty token replaced by the number 0, not by
> the null value ""!)
> +*  Complex example
> +  * "1.0" < "1.sp" (trailing null value removed, padded to identifier
> null, which is less than sp)
> +  * "1.sp.1" < "1.0.1" ( .sp < .0  because ".qualifier" < ".number")
> +
> +  Note1: Contrary to what was stated in some design documents, snapshots
> are not treated differently than releases or any other qualifier.
> +  Note2: The Versionning Order quickly becomes complex unless you stick
> with "sane" versions.
> +
> +
> +
> +
>  *** {Exclusions}
>
>Exclusions explicitly tell Maven that you don't want to include the
>
>
>
> 

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
>> and then cut alpha-1
>>
>> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
>> focus that on shaking out bugs.
>>
>> Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
>> which point it should only be serious bug fixes)
>>
>> Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release
>>
>> I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms
> 
> Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
> MNG-5967 Dependency updates
> MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
  ^
Not sure about it. Surefire plugin should not be upgraded, IMHO. For the
site plugin upgrade, the site.xml descriptors need updating, AFAIK. Are
the site.xml descriptors prepared for that plugin version already? I'd
say -1 to changing the plugin management in the 4.0.0 super POM. Let's
not touch those versions but remove the whole plugin management in 3.5.1.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
>> and then cut alpha-1
>>
>> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
>> focus that on shaking out bugs.
>>
>> Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
>> which point it should only be serious bug fixes)
>>
>> Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release
>>
>> I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms
> 
> Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
> MNG-5967 Dependency updates
  ^
+1 to the MNG-5967 branch.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Christian Schulte]

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through
>> and then cut alpha-1
>>
>> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
>> focus that on shaking out bugs.
>>
>> Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
>> which point it should only be serious bug fixes)
>>
>> Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release
>>
>> I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms
> 
> Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
> MNG-5967 Dependency updates
> MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
  ^
This has a huge impact on the ITs. Last time I checked there has not
been a maven-plugin-plugin version around we could have upgraded to.
Let's postpone this until all plugins referenced by the core can be
upgraded to Maven 3.0 prerequisites. Someone knows what plugins are
still in need to be bumped to Maven 3?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

[GitHub] maven-surefire issue #142: SUREFIRE-1330: Import provider code donated by JU...

[britter]

Github user britter commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/142
  
@Tibor17 this PR is for 3.0-rc1 branch not for master. Can't we integrate 
it into 3.0-rc1 branch right away?


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Robert Scholte]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:46:37 +0100, Michael Osipov   
wrote:



Am 2017-02-11 um 15:33 schrieb Robert Scholte:

The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use
the matching JIRA issue.


Do you want me to add these to the issue description itself? Unless I  
create a JIRA issue per dependency, they won't show up in the release  
notes. One could do this with sub-tasks.


No, I don't think there's a need for such detail. It should be easy to  
trace back such changes. So if we have one JIRA with the diff of 3.3.9 and  
3.5.0 that's good enough.





branch of MNG-5967 looks good to me.


Thanks, I will merge when all tests pass.

I have now added a MNG-5968 branch, but I think this needs to be broken  
up into three separate issues:


1. Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates
2. Super POM plugin version updates
3. Default plugin version updates

WDYT?



Makes sense


On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:30:46 +0100, Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte:

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe
why...).
I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the
greatest due to some small regressions.
So without these details I'd say no.


I am preparing two branches based on Christian's work, so you'll see
what will end up in the merge. No secrets here.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov  


wrote:


Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much
prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta
(at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are  
better

terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also
include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 15:33 schrieb Robert Scholte:

The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use
the matching JIRA issue.


Do you want me to add these to the issue description itself? Unless I 
create a JIRA issue per dependency, they won't show up in the release 
notes. One could do this with sub-tasks.



branch of MNG-5967 looks good to me.


Thanks, I will merge when all tests pass.

I have now added a MNG-5968 branch, but I think this needs to be broken 
up into three separate issues:


1. Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates
2. Super POM plugin version updates
3. Default plugin version updates

WDYT?


On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:30:46 +0100, Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte:

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe
why...).
I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the
greatest due to some small regressions.
So without these details I'd say no.


I am preparing two branches based on Christian's work, so you'll see
what will end up in the merge. No secrets here.


On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much
prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta
(at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also
include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 13:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

MNG-5934 go for it

how will thenother two affect the goal of being a drop in for 3.3.9 (if the
pom I am building assumes version X is default and we are now version Y) or
are these just updates to the Maven core classpath?


Please see the branches for MNG-5967 and MNG-5968 and decide for yourself.


On Sat 11 Feb 2017 at 11:06, Michael Osipov  wrote:


Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer

to

focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

--

Sent from my phone




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Robert Scholte]

The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use the  
matching JIRA issue.

branch of MNG-5967 looks good to me.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:30:46 +0100, Michael Osipov   
wrote:



Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte:

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe
why...).
I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the
greatest due to some small regressions.
So without these details I'd say no.


I am preparing two branches based on Christian's work, so you'll see  
what will end up in the merge. No secrets here.



On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much
prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta  
(at

which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also  
include

MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte:

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe
why...).
I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the
greatest due to some small regressions.
So without these details I'd say no.


I am preparing two branches based on Christian's work, so you'll see 
what will end up in the merge. No secrets here.



On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov 
wrote:


Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much
prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Robert Scholte]

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe  
why...).
I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the  
greatest due to some small regressions.

So without these details I'd say no.

Robert

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov   
wrote:



Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer  
to

focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Archetype (Plugin) version 3.0.0

[Robert Scholte]

+1

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:17:32 +0100, Robert Scholte   
wrote:



Hi,

We solved 27 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317122=12330297=Text

There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%2012317122%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC

Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1322
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1322/org/apache/maven/archetype/maven-archetype/3.0.0/maven-archetype-3.0.0-source-release.zip

Source release checksum(s):
maven-archetype-3.0.0-source-release.zip sha1:  
2be3f477ce00a159358737fe7ce83ffba76de5b0


Staging site:
https://maven.apache.org/archetype-archives/archetype-LATEST/

Guide to testing staged releases:
https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html

Vote open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Stephen Connolly]

MNG-5934 go for it

how will thenother two affect the goal of being a drop in for 3.3.9 (if the
pom I am building assumes version X is default and we are now version Y) or
are these just updates to the Maven core classpath?

On Sat 11 Feb 2017 at 11:06, Michael Osipov  wrote:

> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> > Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> >> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
> >> through
> >> and then cut alpha-1
> >>
> >> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer
> to
> >> focus that on shaking out bugs.
> >>
> >> Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
> >> which point it should only be serious bug fixes)
> >>
> >> Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release
> >>
> >> I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
> >> terms
> >
> > Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
> > MNG-5967 Dependency updates
> > MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
> > as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
> > MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD
> >
> > If Christian is busy, I can take on them.
>
> Christian,
>
> do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?
>
> Anyone else seconding those issues?
>
> Michael
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

[GitHub] maven-surefire issue #142: SUREFIRE-1330: Import provider code donated by JU...

[Tibor17]

Github user Tibor17 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/142
  
@britter 
LGTM
We have to wait for release 2.19.2.
After that I will squash previous changes into one and commit to master 
which will be 3.0 RC1.
Meanwhile we can continue on both branches, means this 3.0-rc1 and junit5 
integration tests.
I am pushed two other branches which were reverted before and one more is 
pending. So I am in progress as well and I hope the Maven colleagues would give 
me go-ahead and finalize release 2.19.2.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly:

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review
through
and then cut alpha-1

We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to
focus that on shaking out bugs.

Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at
which point it should only be serious bug fixes)

Then we give the beta some soak and cut the release

I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better
terms


Looks good to me. I think that the very first alpha should also include
MNG-5967 Dependency updates
MNG-5968 Default plugin version updates
as well as this cheap, non-functional improvement:
MNG-5934 String handling issues identified by PMD

If Christian is busy, I can take on them.


Christian,

do you mind to merge them into master? If you won't can I take over?

Anyone else seconding those issues?

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org