Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Am 03/14/17 um 21:24 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Not so easy. Was attempted before and hit issues with gpg signing. Can you remember what issues that were? It will sign the temporary pom java.io.File the same way the install plugin will install that and the deploy plugin will deploy that.

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Not so easy. Was attempted before and hit issues with gpg signing. Not in scope for 3.5.0 On Tue 14 Mar 2017 at 18:58, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 12.03.2017 um 15:36 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: > > Hi, > > > > So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Am 12.03.2017 um 15:36 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: > Hi, > > So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for > now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason > (explanations later). > > I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this: > >

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Am 03/13/17 um 08:33 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: >> The flatten-maven-plugin solution appears to me like a workaround for >> some missing support in Maven core. Also a good reason to split build >> pom from deployed pom. Maybe all of this better be postponed to model >> version 5.0.0? > splitting build

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

> The flatten-maven-plugin solution appears to me like a workaround for > some missing support in Maven core. Also a good reason to split build > pom from deployed pom. Maybe all of this better be postponed to model > version 5.0.0? splitting build pom from deployed (or consumer) pom IMHO is: 1.

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Am 03/12/17 um 15:36 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: > Hi, > > So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for > now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason > (explanations later). > > I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this: > >

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Hi, So if no one has objections against this change I would like to do the merge to master monday evening... I will wait for the IT's results first ... Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise On 12/03/17 19:47, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: Hi Hervé, On 12/03/17 19:40, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: IIUC

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Hi Hervé, On 12/03/17 19:40, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: IIUC You can publish such poms with ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in central from the early begining: even MNG-5576 just removed a warning I didn't remember on that...Thanks for pointing out this. Then the new commit just make

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

IIUC You can publish such poms with ${revision}, ${sha1} and/or ${changelist} in central from the early begining: even MNG-5576 just removed a warning Then the new commit just make it work better, in more complex multi-module situations: looks reasonable I just pushed 2 commits: the first one

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

On Sun 12 Mar 2017 at 14:36, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi, > > So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for > now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason > (explanations later). > > I would like to know the opinion of the Maven

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2 / MNG-6057

Hi, So after I finalized the implementation which seemed to be ok for now...the IT's are currently not working based on particular reason (explanations later). I would like to know the opinion of the Maven DEV's about this: The following scenario: This feature has been introduced in Maven

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Benedikt has started a vote for CLI-1.4[1], which should be used as replacement for our own MergedCommandLine. I'll leave it up to you if this is worth adding to alpha-2 Robert [1]

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Ok no problem On Fri 10 Mar 2017 at 06:22, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > > On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > How are we doing? > > > > Are we ready to freeze? > > Can we wait until monday.. > > I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently >

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

On 10/03/17 00:29, Stephen Connolly wrote: How are we doing? Are we ready to freeze? Can we wait until monday.. I would like to integrate MNG-6170 (which is ready) and currently working on IT's for MNG-6057, MNG-6090, MNG-5895 which I would like to integrate into 3.5.0-alpha-2... So I

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Am 03/10/17 um 00:29 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > How are we doing? > > Are we ready to freeze? Nothing left to do on my side. There are a couple of issues in JIRA flagged "in progress" for -alpha-2. Not sure about them. - To

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

How are we doing? Are we ready to freeze? On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 19:40, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the > impact? > > > > I understand the logic: it should fix a bug

[IT MNG-6173] (was Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2)

Am 03/04/17 um 14:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > We are still in alpha, so bugs with severity S1-S3 are eligible (and S4 > with a risk assessment) > Severity is something like this (but as a project we probably need to > define the categories for Maven core) > > S1: blows up for everyone, no

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact? > > I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven > 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc. > But no pointer to any

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Am 03/04/17 um 18:54 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact? > > I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven > 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc. > But no pointer to any

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

I have one question, which is recurring for every issue: what is the impact? I understand the logic: it should fix a bug (that is told introduced in Maven 3.3.1), and the bug is explained by the logic behind the javadoc. But no pointer to any code using this method, and that shows that Maven

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

I've created two more issues: MNG-6181 Wagon produces a lot of noise at debug loglevel MNG-6180 groupId has plain color when goal fails I have no proper solution yet for MNG-6181, maybe we simply need to change the loglevel for wagon to INFO. Robert On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 02:45:21 +0100,

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Hi, I see it the same way...I think we might need an alpha-2 but then I don't a requirement for further releases before the final GA... I would like to get two changes into alpha-2 (MNG-6057, MNG-6170) which fixing things. MNG-6170 fixes an edge case in relationship with -T XX calling a

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

We are still in alpha, so bugs with severity S1-S3 are eligible (and S4 with a risk assessment) Severity is something like this (but as a project we probably need to define the categories for Maven core) S1: blows up for everyone, no workaround S2: blows up under certain circumstances, no

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

Am 03/02/17 um 22:55 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th. > > If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only bug > fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the diff > from alpha-2 to beta-1)

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

1 non-final then the final, *if everything happens as expected*: ok, fine for me, I can live with that extra step :) Le samedi 4 mars 2017, 08:12:35 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit : > I was only planning 1 beta. > > And if alpha-2 is good enough and we are confident we can skip the beta... > >

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

I was only planning 1 beta. And if alpha-2 is good enough and we are confident we can skip the beta... I want to avoid RCs, we should have one take only for the actual release On Sat 4 Mar 2017 at 01:47, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > sorry to open such discussion, but given

Re: Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

sorry to open such discussion, but given the good feedback on alpha-1 (which is a good news), are alpha-2 then beta-1 then beta-2 before GA really useful? Not a little bit too much? Or are there really changes I don't see that require such detailed qualification path? Regards, Hervé Le jeudi

Timeline for 3.5.0-alpha-2

I'd like to declare feature freeze for alpha-2 on March 9th. If a feature does not land in alpha-2 it will not be in beta-1 (i.e. Only bug fixes or rip out features that are causing S1/S2 issues will be in the diff from alpha-2 to beta-1) I am aiming beta-2 approx 2 weeks after alpha-2 and the