+1
2008/8/23 Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old.
I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git
and accurev and fix some issues.
We solved 41 issues :
+1
--
Olivier
2008/8/22 Vincent Siveton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
We solved more than 30 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14120styleName=HtmlprojectId=11138
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Petar Tahchiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is Petar Tahchiev from the Jakarta Cactus team. Our release depends on
fixing the 345 issue of the Assembly plugin and releasing a new version of
this plugin. I have created several patches
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Petar Tahchiev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is Petar Tahchiev from the Jakarta Cactus team. Our release
depends on
fixing the 345 issue of the Assembly plugin and releasing a new
version of
this plugin. I
+0 if 1.1.1 will be in 3/4 weeks
-1 if 1.1.1 will be ages away as I suspect the accirev code will not
work and I cannot test it until 1st Sept when I return from vacation
Sent from my iPod
On 24 Aug 2008, at 09:58, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
2008/8/23 Olivier Lamy [EMAIL
if there is a 1.1.1 in the next 3-4 weeks, I'm +0
if it will be longer then -1 as the accurev stuff probably does not
work unless you've done some major trickery
the issue is that you cannot check in changes unless you use a
workspace, and you cannot nest workspaces so unless the release
Hi,
Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty
much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x,
and then make trunk Wagon 1.1.x.
I personally want to stabilize trunk for a
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be sure about my spare time is not 100% sure :-)
Currently there are only 7 issues for 1.1.1 (some have patches).
But it looks Mark has attached a patch to SCM-402 (I can certainly
apply it quickly
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Given the recent fiasco over the snapshot repo, it's probably a good
idea that we change the Apache root pom to have usesUnique=false and
start inheriting from that version.
+1 from my little corner, just to bring this back to discussion ;-)
Benjamin
+1 (non-binding)
Hervé
Le vendredi 22 août 2008, Vincent Siveton a écrit :
Hi,
We solved more than 30 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14120styleName=Ht
mlprojectId=11138
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
Hi,
AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.
I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a
big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4.
So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ?
--
Olivier
2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
+1
Emmanuel
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old.
I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git
and accurev and fix some issues.
We solved 41 issues :
On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.
I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a
big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4.
So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ?
Because
proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
Arg, it's actually after beta-2 all the changes were made and there's
no real separation between bug fixes, new implementations and features
added.
On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.
I'm
On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies
weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there
wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes.
Sounds good :)
On 22/08/2008, at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose the following update (excluding typos ;-) )
to the index.apt template given in the Plugin Documentation Standard
[0]:
* Usage
General instructions on how to use the Plugin Name can be found
Thanks.
You have 3 JIRA accounts, which is the one you use?
- Brett
On 23/08/2008, at 3:32 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Brett,
If someone would agree to kindly grant me karma to update issue
titles, I'll change them for you.
Paul
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with
2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't
really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
That is significant:
Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want
to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling
versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to
stabilise things there. How about
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have
cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new
wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would
just rather be safe then repentant.
I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just
ok, I found the right one. We've put people into maven-developers in
the past for this type of thing even when they weren't committers, but
instead I've created a maven-contributors group we can use (that only
has edit and assign permissions) for anyone that shows genuine
interest in
I plan on fixing the 3.0 ticket list to replace 2.1 in issue titles
with 3.0, but it does raise a question. Should tickets contain the
version? Isn't that violating the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
principle? I think it may be better just to strip that away.
Thoughts?
Paul
I would personally put [regression] at the start of the subject for
those that used to work in 2.0.x, and strip the version off in all
cases.
On 25/08/2008, at 2:19 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
I plan on fixing the 3.0 ticket list to replace 2.1 in issue titles
with 3.0, but it does raise a
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3
Milos
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped
up, but the vast majority of
On 25/08/2008, at 2:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3
Sure, but that was fixed in beta-4, along with the proxy one. I'm not
aware of any outstanding issues?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL
That's a maven-artifact problem:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-224
On 24-Aug-08, at 9:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3
Milos
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place
for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point
in that either.
Only 2
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in
place for a point release. You could use beta-2,
On 25/08/2008, at 3:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in
place for a point release. You could use beta-2,
+1
LieGrü,
strub
--- Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Sa, 23.8.2008:
Von: Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
An: Maven Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED], scm-dev@maven.apache.org
Datum: Samstag, 23. August 2008, 20:23
Hi,
The last
+1
Andy
On 23 Aug 2008, at 19:23, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old.
I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git
and accurev and fix some issues.
We solved 41 issues :
-1
Not until SCM-392 has been fixed. This is a critical issue for us.
And I don't imagine that it is that an uncommon a problem either.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-392
-Chris
--
View this message in context:
Dennis Lundberg-2 wrote:
Hang on a second, Subversion is telling us that your directory
workspace is not under version control here. And that is a correct
observation, since your parent is in the FireDragon directory.
I wonder who is telling svn to perform svn operations on that
+0
I want it to be released because of the Git integration but the SVN
issue (SCM-392) seems important as well.
- Imran
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, ChrisGWarp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1
Not until SCM-392 has been fixed. This is a critical issue for us.
And I don't imagine that it is
35 matches
Mail list logo
