Brett Porter wrote [and Dennis Lundberg said similar things]:
Given this, I don't see any need to change the way we use the closed
state or reintroduce the resolved workflow step.
Hrm, yes, fair enough, you're probably right. It was just a thought...
--
Richard van der Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 16/11/2006, at 3:25 AM, Richard van der Hoff wrote:
Just my opinion here, but it seems wrong to 'close' a bug when
there's no release on the horizon, because:
(a) it might be closed to you, but if the fix depends on maven 2.1
it's as good as useless to real-world users. I think that you'
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> [MSITE-91]
There has not been any official release of the site-plugin yet, that
incorporates this fix.
You can build the plugin yourself from source, by downloading it
from SVN. Then you
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> [MSITE-91]
There has not been any official release of the site-plugin yet, that
incorporates this fix.
You can build the plugin yourself from source, by downloading it from
SVN. Then you just run "mvn install". You al
Graham Leggett wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
There has not been any official release of the site-plugin yet, that
incorporates this fix.
You can build the plugin yourself from source, by downloading it from
SVN. Then you just run "mvn install". You alse need to bump the
version number for t
Hi Graham,
No soon. The current site plugin needs Maven 2.1 and not 2.0.x.
The next release of Maven is 2.0.6, attempted for the end of the year.
Cheers,
Vincent
2006/11/14, Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> There has not been any official release of the site-plug
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
There has not been any official release of the site-plugin yet, that
incorporates this fix.
You can build the plugin yourself from source, by downloading it from
SVN. Then you just run "mvn install". You alse need to bump the version
number for the site-plugin in your
Graham Leggett wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
MSITE-91 was closed by me after committing r473599 [1] which hopefully
solves the issue. Please try it and see if it works for you.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=473599
MSITE-91 claimed a fixed version of "2.0" which has not
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
MSITE-91 was closed by me after committing r473599 [1] which hopefully
solves the issue. Please try it and see if it works for you.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=473599
MSITE-91 claimed a fixed version of "2.0" which has not (to my
understanding)
Hello
MSITE-91 was closed by me after committing r473599 [1] which hopefully
solves the issue. Please try it and see if it works for you.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=473599
--
Dennis Lundberg
Franz Allan Valencia See wrote:
Good day to you, Graham,
As of the current
Good day to you, Graham,
As of the current source, siteDirectory simply indicates the location
of the site files (apt, fml, etc). But still, the site descriptor must
still be src/site/site.xml (or src/site/site_.xml).
I am not actually sure why MSITE-91 was closed either.
Can anyone reopen MSIT
On Mon, November 13, 2006 7:57 pm, Graham Leggett wrote:
> First question: does the siteDirectory parameter specify the location of
> the site.xml file, in addition to the apt, fml and xdoc directories, or am
> I barking up the wrong tree?
I found MSITE-91, which has a comment from May this year
Hi all,
I am trying to specify a site descriptor for a legacy project that does
not have a standard maven layout, and so I need to define that site.xml
should be found in ${basedir}/site/site.xml.
Apparently the siteDirectory parameter within the site plugin is used to
specify where the site.xml
13 matches
Mail list logo
