On 14 August 2013 10:45, sebb wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 10:23, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 09:47, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> >
On 14 August 2013 12:01, sebb wrote:
>
> As a member of the ASF, I do think it's my problem if software is
> being released in the name of the ASF.
>
> The ASF is about transparency - "if it did not happen on a public
> mailing list then it did not happen".
>
> It should be possible for anyone to
On 14 August 2013 14:14, sebb wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 14:08, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Here you go:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.5/
>
> Thanks again, however that was last updated:
>
> Last Changed Author: jvanzyl
> Last Changed Rev: 151
On 15 August 2013 09:50, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> >> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
+1
On Friday, 16 August 2013, Andreas Gudian wrote:
> One more PMC vote would be great to get this over with... ;-)
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, 15. August 2013 schrieb Olivier Lamy :
>
> > +1
> >
> > On 12 August 2013 03:51, Andreas Gudian
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We solved 13 issues:
I don't think Sebb has been under attack. Certainly I know I have tried my
best to craft my replies such that it is the ideas and not the person. The
one time I used "troll" and "Sebb" in the same sentence it was when I
pointed out that if he continued to not address the PMCs responses and
instead
That sounds like you are looking for the SHA1 sum of the source bundle to
be included in the vote email. Which would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
On 16 August 2013 12:31, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Dennis, of course source bundles will contain URLs and hashes and revisions
> and so forth, and th
nes being
> officially voted on.
>
> This is something I've long thought is necessary to be able to tie the
> vote mail to the artifacts.
>
> And it could be very useful to have the hash in the mail archive.
>
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Stephen Connolly
On 16 August 2013 14:27, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 13:44, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> > r1514680
> >
> > Does that, coupled with the knowledge that our source release bundles are
> > *supposed to* include the tag details that they were built from resolve
>
I agree that this is a regression. I have asked Jason to take a look before
he cuts the next release
On 16 August 2013 14:47, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are currently using Maven 3.0.5 to build our project called
> Thermostat[1]. Our build produces zip files at some stage of the
> reac
On 21 August 2013 14:59, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Yes, both OSX and Windows jobs are unreliable in their current state. When
> they are more mature we can move them from the "unstable" view to the
> "stable" view.
>
> Let me check with builds@a.o to see if they have the resources to breathe
> so
Looks to be the maven-shade-plugin that is doing the property substitution.
They built with Maven 3.1.0 (I had been worried it was a 2.1.0 or 2.2.0
issue)
On 21 August 2013 14:05, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> On 20 August 2013 22:16, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> > Transitively it won't be propagated AFAI
Beware the changing of the pom schema is a thorny subject... at present
we are still stuck trying to decide how to evolve to the next schema
(whatever that is) without breaking *everything*
On 22 August 2013 16:54, Phillip Hellewell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Mark Derricutt
This is why I believe that POM 5.0 needs the ability to both declare that a
specific module *provides* other GAVs as well as at the dependency level to
declare that a specific dependency of the module *provides* the equivalent
of another GAV... exclusions is a non-scalable attempt to solve that pro
On 23 August 2013 05:30, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> On 23/08/2013, at 3:50 PM, Domi wrote:
>
> Should maven not have a Concept to support multiple schema versions?
>
>
> In theory it does, by way of the DTD declaration, you can specify which
> DTD you're currently using, but support for that POM ve
use a newer version of Maven,
> since you expect a different behavior for the dependency resolution.
>
> I see options for new elements during project build time, but not for
> "dependency-resolution" time right now.
>
> Robert
>
>
> Op Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:14:04 +020
If you make the strategy a component provided by sisu, then a build
extension could provide an alternative implementation for the project that
the extension is defined in.
I presume the strategy is something you only want to apply to a project's
handling of its dependencies. If another project con
On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's better than that... I am not sure if I said it earlier or not, so I
> > will try to say it now.
> >
> > When we get the next format, ther
ct with mvn4? (which would fix your issue
by not looking at the legacy poms)
-Stephen
>
> Arnaud
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible
> > wrote:
> >
On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> > On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Stephen,
> >>
> >> Stephen Connolly wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
>
On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> > And since this would be for a new Maven, we need only concern ourselves
>> > that the contract of the new Maven's classpath and property behaviour is
>>
On 27 August 2013 10:55, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> In consequence this will also implicitly drop (transitive) dependency
> manipulations with profiles.
>
>
Yes, a "good thing" in my opinion ;-)
> However, all makes sense now to me - thanks for explaining.
>
Just my vision... I don
On Tuesday, 27 August 2013, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Op Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:59:08 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible >&g
Sounds like you should be obfuscating *in* module 2 and then adding the
dependency with classifier to module 3 and 4 (or do two obfuscations in
module 2 if you need different flavours)
On Wednesday, 28 August 2013, Richard Sand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wayne, thanks for the feedback. I understand whe
y obfuscation has to be the last thing done before final testing
> and
> assembly.
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:12 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: R
On 8 September 2013 18:51, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:12 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
> > the tarballs?
> >
>
> Sorry, not intentional. I forgot.
>
> > It's particularly important here, because AFAICT the SCM coor
On 10 September 2013 17:16, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and
> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That
> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have t
Why as long as you don't push the tag, there's no big deal. Pushing the tag
is when problems appear... In any case I'd prefer to just skip failed
version numbers... Though I was voted down last time that came up, and
given I'm not running too many releases at the moment, I don't see my
opinion as b
3, 21:51
> >> Subject: Re: Leaving Maven Core POMs at major.minor-SNAPSHOT
> >>
> >> I agree on skipping failed versions! I was avoiding the topic because it
> >> seemed popular opinion was to re-spin endlessly like a child's spinning
> top.
> >>
&g
27;t agree. I think this would be massively confusing to people if a
> version was missing, or several failed and you went from 3.1.0 to 3.1.3. I
> don't think that would make much sense to most users.
>
> On Sep 14, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno..
us!). They can handle
> missing
> > versions. If you released firefox 12 after firefox 10 it would be
> confusing
> > for millions, maven 3.1.5 after maven 3.1.1, ONLY a complete and utter
> > moron would be confused by this. Few developers are that stupid, and
> those
&g
tinue without having to coordinate a "nobody commit to master while vote in
play" policy which seems completely against how one should use GIT
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Sep 2013, at 12:30, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Exactly! :-)
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Co
On 16 September 2013 08:20, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > When a release fails like this it is annoying to have to rev back the
> > version of the POM. I'm not sure who flipped the versions in the POM and
> > while it's a little more visible to see what you're mov
In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201309.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMwUvmaoOuBJ7dpVj9qAmwVnbfcxTid7UZgc6EdEL7%2BOpg%40mail.gmail.com%3EI
did some searching...
The ASF Licensing How To includes this helpful simple snippet:
http://www.apa
On 16 September 2013 10:50, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201309.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMwUvmaoOuBJ7dpVj9qAmwVnbfcxTid7UZgc6EdEL7%2BOpg%40mail.gmail.co
ou've covered)?
>
> -Chris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16/09/2013, at 7:50 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal
On 16 September 2013 11:46, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's see what legal concludes... my postulate is that people advocating
> for the files in SCM have not fully considered what that implies and that
> the "PMC must vote on releases s
hey
lead to irreproducible release builds, which is a very bad thing
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 September 2013 08:20, Jörg Schaible > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jason,
> >
ses, my view is that this issue is parked for us
until such time as ASF legal actually rules on the question(s) asked.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's see what legal
On 16 September 2013 11:48, sebb wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 10:50, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> > In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201309.mbox/%3CCA%2BnPnMwUvmaoOuBJ7dpVj9qAmwVnbfc
On 16 September 2013 13:20, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16 September 2013 11:48, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 16 September 2013 10:50, Stephen Connolly
>> wrote:
>> > In an effort to get to a definitive answer for
>&g
On 16 September 2013 13:31, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16 September 2013 13:20, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 September 2013 11:48, sebb wrot
Jason, are you going to cast your vote on this?
On 17 September 2013 16:39, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so
> I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
>
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secur
In order to accept patches into any Apache Foundation project there must be
EITHER a signed ICLA on file from the person submitting the change OR a
clear indication of intent to contribute the code to the Apache Foundation.
For small or quick changes signing a ICLA is overkill and too large a
barr
On 23 September 2013 14:32, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In order to accept patches into any Apache Foundation project there must
> be
> > EITHER a signed ICLA on file from
Tested source release sha1: 94620a9fc891efb075c2b61e164b30640b5bd908
rat check: pass
integration tests: pass
+1 from me
On 24 September 2013 21:04, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 5 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/**secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?**
> projectId=11131&version=17634&**sty
realistically, I think the "right" solutions to most of these issues will
require a move to modelVersion 5.0.0... and squaring that circle is the
problem we've been munching on for a number of years now...
On 3 October 2013 08:44, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Video with 5 Maven dependency
+1
On Saturday, 5 October 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Given the vote we had about releases after September does anyone mind if I
> update the source/target levels to 1.6 for the core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,
gt;>
>>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > LieGrue,
>>> > strub
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Original Message -
>>> >
>>
Has the page title problem been fixed?
Last I checked you could not set the page title that Doxia generates for
HTML pages generated from markdown
(Crosses fingers that it is fixed)
On Saturday, 5 October 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> We current have multiple formats for our site documentation a
5, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >
> > > https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA-472 ? No, still not fixed.
> > >
> > > IMHO the fml can only be replaced if there's a macro to generate an
> > index of all the questions.
> > >
> >
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Oct 2013, at 08:44, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sunday, 6 October 2013, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> just my 2 cents:
>>
>> * I do not understand what is that bad about xdoc
On Monday, 7 October 2013, Manfred Moser wrote:
> > If I was choosing to write a technical book I would choose asciidoc.
>
> Agreed.. in fact asciidoc is the default markup tool at OReilly. I use it
> for all the books as Sonatype including Maven: The Complete Reference and
> Maven by Example..
>
You're voting for the wrong thing. It was already decided and announced
that when we cut 3.2 after Sep 30th it would be 1.6
The decision is: should the next release be 3.2 or 3.1.2? To my mind that
is a commit that Jason should just push and if somebody objects to the
commit they get to maintain t
ennis Lundberg wrote:
> Well, I don't see the difference, but if I put it this way:
> I would be -1 to release Maven 3.1.2 requiring Java 1.6.
> One shouldn't bump platform requirements in a patch version - a patch
> version should be a drop-in replacement.
>
> On Mon, Oct 7,
Welcome domi
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please welcome Bartholdi Dominik as a new committer of the Apache
> Maven project. The Apache Maven PMC has voted to grant committership
> to him.
>
> The account have already been set up and he can begin working on the
Any work that gets patches applied is valid work. You don't get commit
access if you are in the school, only a bunch of mentors who have commit
access to shout at if your patches are being ignored ;-)
IOW self starters wanted ;-)
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, Manfred Moser wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I ha
Kristian,
I was looking to use Surefire to help running tests in scripting
languages...
i.e. where the .class file is not necessarily created at all.
I notice that Surefire's Providers API leans heavily on ScanResult which
seems to be biased towards assuming that there is a .class file for each
e has been some leaking in the abstractions, it
> should hold.
>
> But it should (at least in theory) still be totally up to the
> provider; it returns a bunch of items in the "getSuites" method, and
> will receive each item in the iterator in the "invoke" item.
>
I'd step back and try Maven 3.0.5's binaries... I am beginning to wonder if
a Java 6 dependency crept into 3.1.x
On 7 November 2013 15:05, Ed Mansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, I tried to use the binaries first, but on the ppc architecture when I
> type "mvn -version"
>
> I see:
>
> Exception in thre
Well, as long as plugins declare support for Maven [2.0,2.2) strictly
speaking we should be building those on Java 1.4
If the plugin declares support for Maven [2.2,3.2) then we need to ensure
Java 1.5 support.
If a plugin declares that it requires Maven 3.2 then we are only needing to
ensure Jav
Well it's not like Maven [,3.2) is critically broken... so you'll just have
to live with that toolchain... anyways, toolchains support should resolve
issues down to 1.5 at least (or older if you can live with older versions
of surefire plugin)
On 12 November 2013 11:02, Chris Graham wrote:
> Um
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/doxia/doxia/trunk/doxia-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/doxia/parser/XhtmlBaseParser.java?view=markup#l413
Seems strange to me... but perhaps there is a good reason...
I'd really like to get the DOXIA-472 support out so that we can actually
use markdown for documentation that has the set...
If anyone has anything they feel really needs to be added... shout out...
likely I'll pull the trigger in a couple of hours anyway... but as most of
the doxia committers are
No I think that it is that Doxia is kind of expecting that you only have
one H1 in your document and that is for the title... of course it doesn't
actually use it for the title
The H1 gets generated by the output sinks... but it just does not get the
hyperlinking targets set...
On 13 November 20
OK, I'm fed up waiting
*Gold Leader:* Red Leader, This is Gold Leader. We're starting our attack
run.
On 13 November 2013 09:47, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> I'd really like to get the DOXIA-472 support out so that we can actually
> use markdown for documentation that h
On 27 October 2012 22:00, wrote:
> Author: bimargulies
> Date: Sat Oct 27 21:00:24 2012
> New Revision: 1402867
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1402867&view=rev
> Log:
> MPOM-38: Enable RAT to help us get maven releases to be license-header
> compliant
> o Also configure the release plu
WARNING: Going to buffer response body of large or unknown size. Using
getResponseBodyAsStream instead is recommended.
[INFO] Downloading from JIRA at:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?view=rss&pid=10780&statusIds=6&resolutionIds=1&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=ASC&tempMax=
The profiles are not being activated... this is why in the asf pom we use
the -P... in the tag
On 13 November 2013 16:01, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> > On 27 October 2012 22:00, wrote:
> >
> >> Author:
ected into maven-site-plugin because
> of
> > DOXIA-499 + DOXIASITETOOLS-85
> > perhaps the class should be readded for compatibility, but marked
> > deprecated, waiting for a new full Doxia+DoxiaSiteTools+m-site-p release
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Her
m
>
> so ready for the new release :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le jeudi 14 novembre 2013 08:56:46 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > Hmmm... ok, I'll roll back and drop the staging repo
> >
> > On 14 November 2013 07:12, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> >
On 14 November 2013 23:33, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le jeudi 14 novembre 2013 20:35:18 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > Cool. I'll give it a shot after getting some people to bed... Are the
> > instructions on
> > http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/maven-shared-rel
Hi,
We solved 4
issues:http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10780&styleName=Html&version=19200
There are still a couple of issues left in
JIRA:http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10780&status=1
Staging
repo:https://repository.apache.org/cont
+1 from me
On 14 November 2013 23:59, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 4
> issues:http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10780&styleName=Html&version=19200
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in
> JIRA:http://jira.codehaus.o
The project-roles doc has most of what I could find... But I do not claim
it to be a complete list, more a WIP
On Thursday, 14 November 2013, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> I thought if I am going to help vote on the checkstyle release I
> should follow the docs we have, especially given the vocal opini
http://maven.apache.org/project-roles.html
On Friday, 15 November 2013, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On 15 November 2013 10:49, Stephen Connolly
> > wrote:
> > The project-roles doc has most of what I could find... But I do not claim
> > it to be a complete list, more a WIP
>
It can wait for next release, I'm staged already and just need one more
binding vote and most of the 72h are expired already
On 17 November 2013 12:02, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 2013-11-15 00:59, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>
>> Hi,
>&g
This vote has passed:
+1: Stephen, Robert, Benson, Hervé
I will proceed to complete the release
On 14 November 2013 23:59, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 4
> issues:http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10780&styleName=Html&version=19200
The Apache Maven team is pleased to announce the release of Apache
Doxia Base, version 1.5
Doxia is a content generation framework that provides powerful
techniques for generating
static and dynamic content: Doxia can be used in a web-based
publishing context to generate
static sites, in additio
On Saturday, 23 November 2013, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 2013-11-23 19:02, schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>
>> I updated https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Git+Migrationwith
>> .gitattributes instructions, and made a global cleanup
>> Seems like plugin-tools is ready for mi
On Saturday, 23 November 2013, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 2013-11-23 20:18, schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>
>> On Saturday, 23 November 2013, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> Am 2013-11-23 19:02, schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>>
>&
Before I forget, here are some of my thoughts on moving towards Model
Version 5.0.0
The pom that we build with need not be the pom that gets deployed...
thus the pom that is built with need not be the same format as the pom
that gets deployed.
Only with pom do we actually need things
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Before I forget, here are some of my thoughts on moving towards Model
> > Version 5.0.0
> >
> >The
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
>
> On 11/23/2013, 23:08, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Stephen Connolly
>> wrote:
>>
>> Before I forget, here are some of my thoughts on moving towards
>>> Mod
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Manfred Moser wrote:
>
> > By separating "consumption" and "production" metadata formats, we'll be
> > able to evolve production format more aggressively. For example, it
> > would be nice to have Tycho-specific configuration markup inside
> > section. This is not cur
ent to assist dependency resolution.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On 11/24/2013, 4:25, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/23/2013, 23:08, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:44 PM, S
f megabytes, which makes this
> approach impractical. The only other option is to keep the index on the
> server and have server-side helper to answer index queries.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
> On 11/24/2013, 10:38, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 24 November
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 3:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Nov 23, 2013, at 5:4
One quick note on representing dependencies as provided/required
> >> capabilities. Although I like this idea in general, I believe it will
> >> require completely new repository layout to be able to efficiently
> >> find capability providers. Single repository-wid
ignored to our peril for far
far too long
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Model Version 5.0.0
>
> On 24 November 2013 17:44, Jason van Zyl
That's why I say parent poms are deployed in three formats: 4.0.0, 5.0.0+
and build. And you specify that your parent Pom must be <= modelVersion of
child pom so that it can evolve as needed
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 16:58
They fit mire as platform "extensions" to my mind
On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> don't we have toolchains for such a case?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 20:13:38 Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > On
First off, and this is addressed at drive-by readers, most everyone else
knows me well enough to know this anyway. I may be the PMC chair, but
99.99% of the things I say are not said as the PMC chair, instead they are
said as a committer to the project who is interested in the current and
future he
Check #1 - Not getting worse on RAT checks
Rat check of 2.1:
Unapproved: 72 unknown: 72 generated: 0 approved: 193 licence.
Rat check of proposed 2.2:
Unapproved: 72 unknown: 72 generated: 0 approved: 193 licence.
Pass
Check #2 - source dist builds and passes ITs
[IN
On Monday, 25 November 2013, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 20:32, Stephen Connolly
> > wrote:
> > be able to generate a pom for 4.0.0 clients that contains some of the
> > bug/features that some people seem to rely on, e.g. ${} expansion in
> > ... but we
In addition to the modelVersion evolution problem, there are some other
issues that I think we need to address for Maven 4.0+
* Platform specific builds
* Architecture specific builds
* Native build flavours (e.g. debug vs non-debug)
You could see this as the "side-artifact" dilemma.
Here are
;
>
>
> not sure if gav is the correct way to identify the platform, though.
>
> Robert
>
> [1] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDEPLOY-118
>
> Op Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:34:29 +0100 schreef Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>:
>
>
-1, for the following reasons
* No checksum of the source bundle in the email, per current vote email
format: FTR SHA1 of bundle I checked is
a0fdae255eebc2dfbd0f973073f7c97284b5f9f9.
* The source bundle does not build.
If I look at the difference between the tag and the source bundle I see the
On Monday, 2 December 2013, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> On 2 December 2013 22:34, Stephen Connolly
> > wrote:
> > -1, for the following reasons
> >
> > * No checksum of the source bundle in the email, per current vote email
> > format
+1, Michael should get his feet wet.
On 4 December 2013 11:45, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> You can release!
>
>
> On 4 December 2013 19:55, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Salut Olivier,
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> I have started a bit in trunk (version bump to 1.4.0-SNAPSHOT)
> >> And created a
101 - 200 of 2711 matches
Mail list logo
