Right, I think this is a good approach + the caveats Daniel suggests. I
think the policy around accepting patches should be along the lines of the
level of guarantee we plan to offer e.g. for "no guarantee" on support we
also offer "no guarantee" re accepting patches i.e. if we can reasonably
Hi Ben,
I think your plugin was uploaded to the snapshot repository.
Take a look at any of this previous threads
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/qkmbl3HrYgk/dWnVU7-nTjoJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/jenkinsci-dev/snapshot/jenkinsci-dev/fyxXO0HXrGc/r1KYltnfzesJ
Ho
I don't see my plugin yet in the two sites mentioned on the wiki. It's been
almost 24 hours and it said they should show up within 6, so I think
somethings wrong.
http://repo.jenkins-ci.org/releases/org/jenkins-ci/plugins/
http://repo.jenkins-ci.org/releases/org/jvnet/hudson/plugins/
When I ran "m
I just filed two bugs for the https issue. I have to say I am quite
concerned this is an issue and that there are over 50 open items listed as
critical security issues in the bug tracker.
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-24190
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-24191
On F
On 07.08.2014, at 22:36, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> I think what we are after is 3 tiers:
>
> - first class UX (we should aim to proactively fix these browsers and provide
> an equal UX across all) - UI testing failures here are considered major UI
> bugs
> - best effort UX (we will accept pa
I blame Stephen for starting us down that path to which others said “me too”
I have no problem using JDK7 as the minimum JDK to compile with (I do this
already as source and target are set to 1.6 and animal sniffer normally catches
my oopses).
/James
From: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com [mail
