On Saturday 12 December 2009 00:24:41 Dale Newfield wrote:
> Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> > built-in the web framework
>
> In order to do this we'd need to add in some information in the form and
> in every link leading from one page of the form to another so that it's
> constantly submitted to th
Not to split hairs, Lukasz, but this is the "released" pom -
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/maven/tags/struts2-archetype-starter-2.1.8.1/pom.xml
Which looks fine.
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 us
Good catch, thanks for fixing it... I think there is a difference
between those two poms. The struts2-parent is the parent for struts*2*
stuff and struts-master is the parent for all struts stuff... So,
struts2-parent can be viewed as a child of struts-master. For
instance, all of us are listed in
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
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 :
> Anyhow, it's funny that you found this, because that step isn't
> relevant to releasing archetypes, since it pertains to the assembly
> zips.
I noticed a problem with coping files on a server - the
m2-staging-repo folder was different than that specified in guideline
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.
+1 GA, they look good, thanks Lukasz for taking care of this.
musachy
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> The Struts 2 Archetypes version 2.1.8.1 test build is now available.
> The following archetypes are ready for test:
> * struts2-archetype-blank
> * struts2-archetype-con
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
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> Not to split hairs, Lukasz, but this is the "released" pom -
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/maven/tags/struts2-archetype-starter-2.1.8.1/pom.xml
>
> Which looks fine.
>
> When I was checking this, it reminded me of something I
I have nothing against continuing the way *we* do it, but Maven
doesn't do it this way. Taking the defaults provided by the Maven
Release Plugin will create tag names like "struts-1.3.11" over
"STRUTS_1_3_11".
Either way we decide, it is not a major loss for the other side, but
not able to accept
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I have nothing against continuing the way *we* do it, but Maven
> doesn't do it this way. Taking the defaults provided by the Maven
> Release Plugin will create tag names like "struts-1.3.11" over
> "STRUTS_1_3_11".
>
> Either way we decide,
I am saying that if we keep the uppercase and underscore convention,
we can't accept the default of Maven's tag names. The release manager
just has to continue using the format we do today. That's all.
Paul
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I am saying that if we keep the uppercase and underscore convention,
> we can't accept the default of Maven's tag names. The release manager
> just has to continue using the format we do today. That's all.
I was trying to understand the disa
Martin,
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the Maven's way is the right
way. There are two way to do releases: manually or batch. In manual
mode, the user is prompted to name the tag. In batch mode, Maven
creates the tag by its own naming standards (projectname-version).
Paul
On Thu, Dec 17,
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
