2009/12/18 Paul Benedict :
> Sweet! Thanks, Lukasz. I voted for it. I hope everyone else here votes
> for it too.
Sure, I added my vote also!
Regards
--
Lukasz
http://www.lenart.org.pl/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr..
Sweet! Thanks, Lukasz. I voted for it. I hope everyone else here votes
for it too.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the solution for our problem ->
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-159
> though either we need to wait for Maven team or to build our
Hi,
Here is the solution for our problem ->
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-159
though either we need to wait for Maven team or to build our own
release manager ;-)
Regards
--
Lukasz
http://www.lenart.org.pl/
-
To uns
:-p
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's an easy way to tell the release plugin to use "upper case
>>>>> and underscores" instead of "lower case and dashes", the continuity
>>>>> would be nice, since there's no other g
>>> If there's an easy way to tell the release plugin to use "upper case
>>>> and underscores" instead of "lower case and dashes", the continuity
>>>> would be nice, since there's no other good reason to change what we've
>&
> been doing for so long. If there isn't an easy way to do that, though,
>>> and it's a nuisance to change the default for some reason, then I'm
>>> not dead set against adopting the Maven way.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Cooper
>>>
ing the Maven way.
>>
>> --
>> Martin Cooper
>>
>>
>>> -Wes
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Lukasz Lenart
>>> wrote:
>>>> 2009/12/16 Martin Cooper :
>>>>> In Lukasz's checkins just now, I see v
gt; --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
>> -Wes
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Lukasz Lenart
>> wrote:
>>> 2009/12/16 Martin Cooper :
>>>> In Lukasz's checkins just now, I see version numbers being changed to
>>>> 2.1.8-
t that
>>> seems like going backwards. We already have a 2.1.8 and a 2.1.8.1, so
>>> it seems to me that any snapshot version we should be using now would
>>> need to be 2.1.9-SNAPSHOT, no? After all, snapshots precede the number
>>> they're attached to, in te
I am +1 for using the default that maven suggest. Less to remember and document.
musachy
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> 2009/12/17 Wes Wannemacher :
>> If no one responds, I will probably update the docs so that we take
>> the default. But, if an artifact is already rele
2009/12/17 Wes Wannemacher :
> If no one responds, I will probably update the docs so that we take
> the default. But, if an artifact is already released, we should
> probably leave it as-is, since the released pom
> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/maven/tags/struts2-archetype-starter-2.1.
Lukasz, don't worry about it... One of the nice (depending on your
perspective) things about SVN over CVS is that tags are much easier to
correct... We could `svn move` that directory to the proper name, but
I wanted to know if there is any good reason to use that other
convention. I'd rather see u
2009/12/17 Wes Wannemacher :
> When I was checking this, it reminded me of something I have been
> meaning to ask. If you look at the tag name that Lukasz used -
> "struts2-archetype-starter-2.1.8.1" But, somewhere in our docs, we use
> a tag name like this - "STRUTS2_ARCHETYPE_STARTER_2_1_8_1" whi
gt;> it seems to me that any snapshot version we should be using now would
>> need to be 2.1.9-SNAPSHOT, no? After all, snapshots precede the number
>> they're attached to, in terms of version number ordering.
>
> I just switched to 2.1.8-SNAPSHOT because Maven releas
apshot version we should be using now would
> need to be 2.1.9-SNAPSHOT, no? After all, snapshots precede the number
> they're attached to, in terms of version number ordering.
I just switched to 2.1.8-SNAPSHOT because Maven release plugin is
complaining - after I did the release,
eed to be 2.1.9-SNAPSHOT, no? After all, snapshots precede the number
they're attached to, in terms of version number ordering.
--
Martin Cooper
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional com
16 matches
Mail list logo
