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