Re: New Branch SUREFIRE-1342

I thought you was testing the branch SUREFIRE-1342. git clone -b SUREFIRE-1342 On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Guillaume Boué wrote: > This is probably the problem, I don't have any dump files. I've attached > the log.txt files for both tests. > > It doesn't seem to be

Re: Distribution file permission issue with current master.

Am 03/15/17 um 23:37 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > no issue for me on Linux > I don't understand what happens to you: I suppose this is once again related > to FreeBSD > I can't do anything for you Upgrading the assembly plugin to 2.6 solves this. Should we consider upgrading the parent for alpha-2

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

Branch name is MNG-6182 Commit is Should I create a separate JIRA issue for this? Regards, --

[GitHub] maven-indexer pull request #13: MINDEXER-97: Index/Store Extra OSGI Headers

GitHub user sesuncedu opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/maven-indexer/pull/13 MINDEXER-97: Index/Store Extra OSGI Headers * Add "Provide-Capability", "Require-Capability", and "Fragment-Host" to the set of indexed+stored manifest headers. * Calculate, index, and

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

On Sat 18 Mar 2017 at 21:58, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 03/18/17 um 14:04 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see > > about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be > > covered by any

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

Am 03/18/17 um 14:04 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see > about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be > covered by any test. There would be an integration test for the code. Since nothing uses it, no

Re: Distribution file permission issue with current master.

Am 03/18/17 um 20:33 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 03/18/17 um 20:33 schrieb Christian Schulte: >> Am 03/15/17 um 23:37 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: >>> no issue for me on Linux >>> I don't understand what happens to you: I suppose this is once again >>> related >>> to FreeBSD >>> I can't do

Re: New Branch SUREFIRE-1342

This is probably the problem, I don't have any dump files. I've attached the log.txt files for both tests. It doesn't seem to be related to the branch though. They work fine in 2.19.1 and also fail with current master. Le 18/03/2017 à 21:57, Tibor Digana a écrit : Please send the dump

Re: New Branch SUREFIRE-1342

Please send the dump files from surefire-integration-tests/target/Surefire141PluggableProvidersIT_invokeRuntimeException surefire-integration-tests/target/Surefire141PluggableProvidersIT_ invokeReporterException They must exist in both. This issue is also concurrency issue but since JVM exit

Re: New Branch SUREFIRE-1342

Le 18/03/2017 à 20:49, Guillaume Boué a écrit : So with JDK 8 (64 bit where possible), the tests are all passing on the systems I tested: FreeBSD 11.0 x64, Ubuntu 16.04 (x32 and x64), and Windows 10 x64. I have two tests consistently in error with OpenJDK 7 (and Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1), at

Re: New Branch SUREFIRE-1342

So with JDK 8 (64 bit where possible), the tests are all passing on the systems I tested: FreeBSD 11.0 x64, Ubuntu 16.04 (x32 and x64), and Windows 10 x64. I have two tests consistently in error with OpenJDK 7 (and Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1), at least on Ubuntu: Failed tests:

Re: Distribution file permission issue with current master.

Am 03/18/17 um 20:33 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 03/15/17 um 23:37 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: >> no issue for me on Linux >> I don't understand what happens to you: I suppose this is once again related >> to FreeBSD >> I can't do anything for you > > I am having the same issue on Jenkins with

Re: Distribution file permission issue with current master.

Am 03/15/17 um 23:37 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > no issue for me on Linux > I don't understand what happens to you: I suppose this is once again related > to FreeBSD > I can't do anything for you I am having the same issue on Jenkins with Linux, BTW. Seems the "unzip" command cannot handle our ZIPs

Re: maven git commit: [MNG-6069] Migrate to non deprecated parts of Commons CLI

Are you *really* sure these public static final fields are only used here? On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:19:05 +0100, wrote: Repository: maven Updated Branches: refs/heads/MNG-6069 [created] b8efec709 [MNG-6069] Migrate to non deprecated parts of Commons CLI Project:

Re: Noting an idea for Maven 5.0.0

Oh there's a lot to go before we can get here... I just had the idea of where my end goal was and needed to write it down for when we get 3.5.0 out the door and I've got the scope for 3.5.1 agreed and I have some time to pick up my spec for 5.0.0 wiki page to bring it to a completed proposal On

Re: Noting an idea for Maven 5.0.0

This kind of overlaps with MNG-6118, which is also about the path to the end-result. I haven't thought about excluding some pieces of the lifecycle by default, but we should focus more on the result. Maven should react much better on the execute location within a multimodule project and

Noting an idea for Maven 5.0.0

So I am thinking the lifecycle should support the concept of *optional* phases. If no subsequent phase depends on the output of an optional phase, and the optional phase was not explicitly called out on the invocation request, then Maven could drop the phase. By way of example, all the current

Re: [08/17] maven git commit: [MNG-6182] ModelResolver interface enhancements.

Given that these new methods actually have implementations, could we see about having at least a unit test of the new code - since it will not be covered by any test. If we have no test and no usage, then we could realistically replace the implementations with `throw new