me too. +1 Emmanuel
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1, I'm satisfied for the purposes of a beta release. > > -john > > > Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> On 10/06/2008, at 7:40 AM, John Casey wrote: >> >> >> I'm not sure about the replacement of the webdav wagon with a whole new >>> implementation during beta releases, either, but I don't have a specific >>> complaint if there's a compelling reason for it (I'm guessing I missed that >>> conversation). >>> >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-wagon-dev/200805.mbox/[EMAIL >> PROTECTED] >> >> This doesn't affect anyone in this release - they would need to explicitly >> update to the new wagon. (Whether to replace the built-in one for 2.0.10, >> and even the API itself, is a separate discussion to this vote). >> >> >> On 10/06/2008, at 10:01 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote: >> >>> I updated the main branch to include the new wagons and the jackrabbit. >>> I'm not setup to test much other than http, which seemed to be ok. I can >>> setup webdav on my apache system tomorrow. I'd like to see how >>> jackrabbit works and >>> >> >> Thanks. The branch I forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has both changes >> already in place - are you using that or did you make your own >> customisations? >> >> particularly test that someone can declare the old >>> wagon-webdav as an extension and make sure it works. >>> >>> >> that was one of my test cases - it'd be good to get a second verification. >> It's unfortunately not very practical to integration test explicitly, but >> there is an IT that checks an alternate wagon can be loaded in as an >> extension. >> >> >> On 09/06/2008, at 6:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >>> I'll take a look early this week, but I'm concerned about how much >>> changed during a beta including API changes and total replacement of a >>> provider. We know from experience now whatever testing we've done we end up >>> dinging users. >>> >> >> >> The API changes were all additive (and in Maven, it's not just that that >> is a problem, it's anything that changes the provider-api JAR since all the >> extensions get bound to the one distributed with Maven). >> >> I think the provider questions are addressed above. >> >> I'm currently stuck with just my vote, so I appreciate those taking a >> look. >> >> Cheers, >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > -- > John Casey > Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) > Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
