I apologize for muddling svnpubsub and the cmd
On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> Sadly it was forced upon us it seems. And I don't believe it's a rant to
>>>
On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Sadly it was forced upon us it seems. And I don't believe it's a rant to
>> comment on a tool that is hard to use and detracts from productivity
>> especially given how much other wor
gt;>
>>> What is the value of svnpubsub? Why is it so valuable compared to
>>> alternatives? Which alternatives are could you (all) imagine?
>>>
>>
>>
>> We don't have an alternative at Apache, so it's not worth chewing over, and
>>
On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> So what do you normally use for documentation? Or what would you prefer?
>
> Of anything I've seen here the Confluence --> static website looked the most
> promising. As soon as you saved a page it attempted to make the update to the
> stati
So what do you normally use for documentation? Or what would you prefer?
Of anything I've seen here the Confluence --> static website looked the most
promising. As soon as you saved a page it attempted to make the update to the
static website. I don't know if that's still in use but was being us
As long as one definitely and 100% stays away from the EU mirror it
would seem to work. Running through the mirror is route to disaster
and *lots* of wasted time.
It would appear that the equivalent git-based solution for site
publication is not ready yet. So for this moment someone will have to
d
alue of svnpubsub? Why is it so valuable compared to
>> alternatives? Which alternatives are could you (all) imagine?
>>
>
>
> We don't have an alternative at Apache, so it's not worth chewing over, and
> this is not the list to re-produce infra@'s reasons
&
t;
> Ansgar
> >
> > Envoyé depuis mon mobile
> >
> > - Reply message -
> > De : "Jason van Zyl"
> > Pour : "Maven Developers List"
> > Objet : The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
> > Date : mar., mars 12, 2013 16:29
>
mobile
>
> - Reply message -
> De : "Jason van Zyl"
> Pour : "Maven Developers List"
> Objet : The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
> Date : mar., mars 12, 2013 16:29
>
>
> I would like if someone would volunteer to do the documentation part
ing small, but it appears to be an issue at the moment.
> Envoyé depuis mon mobile
>
> - Reply message -
> De : "Jason van Zyl"
> Pour : "Maven Developers List"
> Objet : The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
> Date : mer., mars 13, 2013 08:00
&g
te of time and karma)
Envoyé depuis mon mobile
- Reply message -
De : "Jason van Zyl"
Pour : "Maven Developers List"
Objet : The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
Date : mar., mars 12, 2013 16:29
I would like if someone would volunteer to do the documentation part o
n Developers List"
Objet : The next major release of Maven: 4.0.0
Date : mer., mars 13, 2013 08:00
I will push the Eclipse Aether work to a branch as there are several ITs that
fail that are related to using real plugins in the ITs which are affected by
the changes. The dependency plugin
I will push the Eclipse Aether work to a branch as there are several ITs that
fail that are related to using real plugins in the ITs which are affected by
the changes. The dependency plugins and site plugin are the ones that are
visible right now. The shade plugin also doesn't work.
The ITs sho
I would like if someone would volunteer to do the documentation part of the
release. This will probably be the 3rd time I've merged Eclipse Aether into
Maven and there are a lot of moving parts that need to be tested and frankly
it's starting to burn me out. I don't have time or interest in usin
My one comment would be to please just get this out and available to
everyone soon so we can move on.
manfred
> Any other comments?
>
> Unless I hear otherwise this week I'll start merging Eclipse Aether into
> master and start a discussion about what that means.
>
> On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:20 AM,
Any other comments?
Unless I hear otherwise this week I'll start merging Eclipse Aether into master
and start a discussion about what that means.
On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
> Personally I would like us to stick with the initial discussion of shipping
> 3.1 with the slf4j
Personally I would like us to stick with the initial discussion of shipping
3.1 with the slf4j usage (and slf4j-simple). That's what we've discussed
and talked about for some time so it would be great to get that out of the
door. The we could discuss the next step. Basically, and generally, I'd
lik
Well at least with Maven 4.0 I would not get the question anymore, why the
pom's model version is at 4 while we use Maven 3 ;-).
Regards Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Mar 9, 2013 12:15 AM, "Brian Fox" wrote:
> I don't think we should move to 4.0 because of this. The primary consumer
> of our
I don't think we should move to 4.0 because of this. The primary consumer
of our systems are the end users and this change doesn't represent "api"
breakage to them. If we make what appears to be such a large version
change, that could scare off or confuse people who are just now warming up
to 3.x.
On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2013/3/4 Hervé BOUTEMY :
>> some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
>>
>> - about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there was an
>> argument
>> for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API w
2013/3/4 Hervé BOUTEMY :
> some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
>
> - about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there was an argument
> for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API will be more generic
> to cover other dependency resolution mec
On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2013, at 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
>> isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
>> Aether and suggest an alt
On Mar 4, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
>
> - about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there was an
> argument
> for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API will be more generic
> to cove
I have no more time to spend on maven sadly.
I pushed here some things I would like to see in a new major version
https://gist.github.com/olamy/5081375
And for sure as an end user I have really nothing to do about SLF4J,
aether, Guice or any other component used within the product.
I understand ver
some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
- about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there was an argument
for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API will be more generic
to cover other dependency resolution mecanisms and repository formats, l
Same here.
On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
> I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
> vast number of peopl
To me I would like to roll in all of it, I think the bump in major version is
appropriate but if we call that 3.1.0 that's fine. It really does work almost
the same, there are some plugins that will get need some rework but that's not
the end of the world. To me a plugin that works in 3.0.x but
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
>> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>>
>
> Any JSR330 discrepancies, SLF4J bein
On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
Any JSR330 discrepancies, SLF4J being used for logging and the Aether changes.
4.0.0 says "we did
Stephen,
It doesn't matter where the code is. It's complicated, takes a lot of effort to
understand and I don't really care, or see it as a problem that Benjamin is the
one who works on it most. No one else worked on here, no one else is working on
it there. It's not where it is, it's that it's
> Well I agree with Semantic Versioning, so the question here that dictates
> 3.2 vs 4.0 is whether we see Sonatype Aether as part of the exposed
> supported API of Maven. IIRC the stated position is that plugin authors are
> not supposed to rely on the Sonatype Aether API. If plugin authors have
>
On 3 March 2013 22:41, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
> I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
> vast number of people who use Mave
On 3 March 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without
> the isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
> Aether and suggest an alternate release path.
>
> SLF4J may cause some issues, but the int
As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
vast number of people who use Maven.
So, I'd switch to Eclipse Aether, including the need t
On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post..
>
> If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also
> update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting there? (
> mixins of some
On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2013, at 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
>> isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
>> Aether and suggest an alt
On 3 Mar 2013, at 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
> isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
> Aether and suggest an alternate release path.
>
> SLF4J may cause some issues, but the
A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post..
If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also
update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting
there? ( mixins of some form ) - or is this out of scope ( of this
discussion at lea
Hi,
No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse Aether
and suggest an alternate release path.
SLF4J may cause some issues, but the introduction of Eclipse Aether is almost
certainly going t
39 matches
Mail list logo
