Re: Maven 4.0.0

> > > > > > > *3. More pluggable dependency resolver:* > > > > I am willing to let this be optional scope for now. May be yanked if too > risky or not ready in time > > > I don't see how you can even make it optional without a pom specified way of saying "not maven central, this way/place instead"

Re: Maven 4.0.0

I've got a few updates I feel would be useful for the next major version; 1) Packaging type generic 'archive', or specific zip or tar.gz - maybe a user property to enable zip and/or tar.gz 2) Packaging type generic 'application', or specific rpm or deb - in future could be extended for windows

[GitHub] hboutemy commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence

hboutemy commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/27#issuecomment-341901865 merged in https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/commit/a7b656d2b60fb9cf316090cb3474e6477cff1849 thank you

[GitHub] hboutemy closed pull request #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence

hboutemy closed pull request #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/27 This is a PR merged from a forked repository. As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for the sake of provenance: As this

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:50, Paul Hammant wrote: > To add to scope for Maven 4, IMO: > > *1. tag could have an optional arg:* > > > my-team,mycorp > com.thoughtworks.xstream > xstream > 1.4.10 > No. We are pushing pom model changes to 5.0.0 (as modelVersion

Re: Maven 4.0.0

Am 2017-11-04 um 13:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next steps. I think we have a semi-consensus which I want to bring back to the list: We keep 3.5.x as a stable branch with critical bug fixes only We switch master to 4.0.0 and

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:52, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:49, Michael Osipov wrote: > >> Am 2017-11-04 um 13:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> > The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next >>

Re: migrating some code to Git

migration done [1] we now have 22 git repos (maven-resolver has 3 independant branches...) I'm waiting for feedback before creating maven-aggregator @ ASF (for Google repo manifest) next big migrations will be shared and plugins once Stephen videos and solution on scaling Jenkins for our

[GitHub] arend-von-reinersdorff opened a new pull request #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence

arend-von-reinersdorff opened a new pull request #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/27 Check page title here: http://maven.apache.org/enforcer/enforcer-rules/dependencyConvergence.html

[GitHub] hboutemy commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence

hboutemy commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/27#issuecomment-341901250 sorry, this was automatically closed when migrating to Git and deleting old trunk branch reopening

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On 4 November 2017 at 07:30, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 14:43:46 CET John Patrick a écrit : > > I've got a few updates I feel would be useful for the next major > version; > > > > 1) Packaging type generic 'archive', or specific zip or tar.gz > > -

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 13:18, Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > *3. More pluggable dependency resolver:* > > > > > > > I am willing to let this be optional scope for now. May be yanked if too > > risky or not ready in time > > > > > > > I don't see how you can even make

Maven 4.0.0

The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next steps. I think we have a semi-consensus which I want to bring back to the list: We keep 3.5.x as a stable branch with critical bug fixes only We switch master to 4.0.0 and start to burn down a release scope. 4.0.0 will not

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:24, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:20, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next >> steps. >> >> I think we have a

Re: Maven 4.0.0

Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 14:43:46 CET John Patrick a écrit : > I've got a few updates I feel would be useful for the next major version; > > 1) Packaging type generic 'archive', or specific zip or tar.gz > - maybe a user property to enable zip and/or tar.gz > > 2) Packaging type generic

[GitHub] oleg-nenashev opened a new pull request #25: MENFORCER-276 - Support ignoring dependency scopes in RequireUpperBoundDeps

oleg-nenashev opened a new pull request #25: MENFORCER-276 - Support ignoring dependency scopes in RequireUpperBoundDeps URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/25 We have recently adopted `RequireUpperBoundDeps` in the Jenkins project

[GitHub] jtnord opened a new pull request #28: [MENFORCER-281] added IT to show the issue.

jtnord opened a new pull request #28: [MENFORCER-281] added IT to show the issue. URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/28 Added an IT to demonstrate [MENFORCER-281](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-281) Fails with the following which is slightly

[GitHub] oleg-nenashev opened a new pull request #26: Add Unit tests for RequireUpperBoundDeps

oleg-nenashev opened a new pull request #26: Add Unit tests for RequireUpperBoundDeps URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/26 I decoupled the test improvements commit from #25. It just adds new tests for the existing functionality. @reviewbybees @jglick @stephenc

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 17:52, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 18:34:14 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > And scripting is the path to the dark side of imperative builds... but > > > proposals welcome > > > > This is true but this is also mandatory

Re: Maven 4.0.0

Would adding support for 2 new scopes be viable without changing the pom model ( the DTD/XSD doesn't actually define the values so that should be ok). Specifically I'm thinking 'annotation' ( having annotationPaths on m-c-p was a workaround, but kinda horrible in practice ), and maybe "module"

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 17:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > My wishlist as a user would be: > > - incremental build (based on scm is fine) > - some built in scripting (groovy based?) I have a worry for groovy with Java 9+ And scripting is the path to the dark side of

Re: Maven 4.0.0

2017-11-04 18:17 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly : > On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 17:11, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > >> My wishlist as a user would be: >> >> - incremental build (based on scm is fine) >> - some built in scripting (groovy based?) > > >

Re: Maven 4.0.0

Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 18:34:14 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > And scripting is the path to the dark side of imperative builds... but > > proposals welcome > > This is true but this is also mandatory today. There is a small > alternative to that and I would be as happy if maven can do

Re: Maven 4.0.0

My wishlist as a user would be: - incremental build (based on scm is fine) - some built in scripting (groovy based?) - plugin sorting from the pom (current rules are deterministic but too hard to use so defining a dependency between two executions in the same phase would be very handy -

Re: migrating some code to Git

no objection: starting the migration of these 6 repos Regards, Hervé Le mercredi 1 novembre 2017, 12:09:58 CET Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : > adding 2 more repos to the list: > https://github.com/hboutemy/maven-doxia-converter > https://github.com/hboutemy/maven-doxia-linkcheck > > Le mercredi 1

Re: Better incremental build in default distro?

Hi, Looks like now that we have color and Java 9 support, this kind of optimization is the next big user-visible feature that is required to keep current. We've had discussions in the past and even one proposal in Maven Wiki, but it seems we did not get much team traction. I didn't know Karl

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:20, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next steps. > > I think we have a semi-consensus which I want to bring back to the list: > > We keep 3.5.x as a stable branch with critical bug

Re: Maven 4.0.0

To add to scope for Maven 4, IMO: *1. tag could have an optional arg:* my-team,mycorp com.thoughtworks.xstream xstream 1.4.10 In the above, central is not checked at all. my-team and my-corp are defined elsewhere. *2. GAV as a first class thing (optional):*

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 12:49, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2017-11-04 um 13:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > The past two days, Hervé, Robert and I have been discussing our next > steps. > > > > I think we have a semi-consensus which I want to bring back to the list: > > > > We

[GitHub] arend-von-reinersdorff commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence

arend-von-reinersdorff commented on issue #27: Fixed wrong page title for Dependency Convergence URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/27#issuecomment-341898122 What was the reason to close this? This is an

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 21:42:34 +0100, Mark Derricutt wrote: Would adding support for 2 new scopes be viable without changing the pom model ( the DTD/XSD doesn't actually define the values so that should be ok). Specifically I'm thinking 'annotation' ( having annotationPaths on

Re: Maven 4.0.0

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 18:34:14 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: 2017-11-04 18:17 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly : On Sat 4 Nov 2017 at 17:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: My wishlist as a user would be: - incremental