You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by "Brian E. Fox" <br...@reply.infinity.nu> on 2007/11/13 09:49:48 UTC
moving forward with 2.0.8
All,
It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate MNG-3259 but
I think this is an edge case and the fix has a greater chance of
breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early in 2.0.9 so there is
plenty of time for any issues to surface. I've placed a new build on
http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build. Please
try it out and report any new issues found. If no new showstoppers
occur, then I'll do the official build later this week / early next
week.
Thanks,
Brian
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
With 2.0.7, I see:
[DEBUG] Test Classpath :
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/classes
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/test-classes
2.0.5, I get:
[DEBUG] Test Classpath :
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/classes
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/test-classes
With 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT, I get:
[DEBUG] Test Classpath :
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/test-classes
[DEBUG] /home/dkulp/working/cxf/tools/javato/ws/target/classes
Thus, it looks like 2.0.8 is correct from the discussions. However, it
is a different behavior than previous which COULD cause test failures.
Just needs to be pointed out in the release notes.
Dan
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> Yeah that makes sense. Which way is it now?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Bowsher [mailto:maxb1@ukf.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:30 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
>
> Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
>
> Wasn't that the old way, and it's recently been switched?
>
> Presumably the rationale is to allow test-classes to contain resources
> which override same-named resources in the main classes dir, or
> something?
>
> Max.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Jörg Schaible <Jo...@Elsag-Solutions.com>.
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> Yeah that makes sense. Which way is it now?
At least M1 and M205 have test-classes first. The generated Eclipse projects also. Don't know about other IDEs, but I guess you will get a lot of feedback if it works the other way round again ;-)
> From: Max Bowsher
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:30 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
>
> Brian E. Fox wrote:
>> I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
>
> Wasn't that the old way, and it's recently been switched?
>
> Presumably the rationale is to allow test-classes to contain
> resources which override same-named resources in the main classes
> dir, or something?
Exactly for that reason.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by "Brian E. Fox" <br...@reply.infinity.nu>.
Yeah that makes sense. Which way is it now?
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Bowsher [mailto:maxb1@ukf.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:30 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
Wasn't that the old way, and it's recently been switched?
Presumably the rationale is to allow test-classes to contain resources which override same-named resources in the main classes dir, or something?
Max.
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
> ... as requested by MNG-3118
>
MNG-2365 is a duplicate and could be closed as well. I attached a unit test
to this issue that checks the test class path ordering.
I would also like to point out trivial issues (documentation) that would
require less than an hour to close them (one way or the other) for Maven
2.0.8 as they have attached patches:
- no-goal-help.patch at MNG-2166 (MNG-3276)
- guide-site.patch at MNG-3244
Benjamin Bentmann
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/moving-forward-with-2.0.8-tf4796513s177.html#a13790374
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
Max O Bowsher wrote:
>
> Brian E. Fox wrote:
>> I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
>
> Presumably the rationale is to allow test-classes to contain resources
> which override same-named resources in the main classes dir, or something?
Test-classes should be first, as requested by MNG-3118 and its
relatives/duplicates.
Benjamin Bentmann
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/moving-forward-with-2.0.8-tf4796513s177.html#a13783818
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
Wasn't that the old way, and it's recently been switched?
Presumably the rationale is to allow test-classes to contain resources
which override same-named resources in the main classes dir, or something?
Max.
RE: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by "Brian E. Fox" <br...@reply.infinity.nu>.
I think classes should be first. (before test-classes)
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:14 PM
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Cc: Brian E. Fox
Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> Ultimately I think the intent was that the order be slightly
> controllable via the order in the dependencies list. If that's still
> the case, then it seems ok to me.
I completely agree with that. If it makes it PREDICTABLE and
CONTROLLABLE, that's a huge improvement.
I guess the question is what is the proper order for the classpath
entries that are NOT defined via dependencies. Basically, the classes
and classes-test directories. I think those two have reversed since
2.0.7.
In anycase, I'm completely OK with the change. I've fixed my testcase
so it works properly either way now.
Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hervé BOUTEMY [mailto:herve.boutemy@free.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
>
> Perhaps I know the code that changed the order:
> while fixing "[MANTTASKS-22] ensure proper order of artifacts in
> ArtifactResolutionResult", the fix in trunk (r591996) was to transform
> a HashSet to a LinkedHashSet in
> o.a.m.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolutionResult.
> But when porting the fix back to 2.0.x branch (r592009), I found that
> such changes in DefaultArtifactCollector had not been ported from
> trunk to branch, then I did it, which can have such a reordering
> consequence.
>
> I just checked in DefaultArtifactCollector history, and found the
> change that has not been back-ported to 2.0.x branch:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/artifact/trunk/src/main/java/org/ap
>ache/maven/artifact/resolver/DefaultArtifactCollector.java?r1=379650&r2
>=512339&pathrev=591996&diff_format=h
>
> Was this intentional to helps ensure compatibility in 2.0.x branch?
>
> HTH to make right choices
>
> Hervé
>
> Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007, Daniel Kulp a écrit :
> > Brian,
> >
> > 2.0.8 seems to have re-ordered the classpath or something such that
> > if I have a unit test that does:
> > System.out.println(getClass().getResource(".").toString());
> > it prints out the directory in the target/classes dir instead of the
> > target/test-classes. With 2.0.5 - 2.0.7, it returned the
> > test-classes version.
> >
> > Now, I DO think the test is bogus and shouldn't depend on the
> > classpath ordering like that. However, this is a change that could
> > cause issues for people.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with
> > > 2.0.7, but I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll
> > > try and dig into it in a bit.
> > >
> > > Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > > 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate
> > > > > MNG-3259 but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a
> > > > > greater chance of breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this
> > > > > early in 2.0.9 so there is plenty of time for any issues to
> > > > > surface. I've placed a new build on
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous
> > > > > build. Please try it out and report any new issues found. If
> > > > > no new showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build
> > > > > later this week / early next week.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> Ultimately I think the intent was that the order be slightly
> controllable via the order in the dependencies list. If that's still
> the case, then it seems ok to me.
I completely agree with that. If it makes it PREDICTABLE and
CONTROLLABLE, that's a huge improvement.
I guess the question is what is the proper order for the classpath
entries that are NOT defined via dependencies. Basically, the classes
and classes-test directories. I think those two have reversed since
2.0.7.
In anycase, I'm completely OK with the change. I've fixed my testcase
so it works properly either way now.
Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hervé BOUTEMY [mailto:herve.boutemy@free.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
>
> Perhaps I know the code that changed the order:
> while fixing "[MANTTASKS-22] ensure proper order of artifacts in
> ArtifactResolutionResult", the fix in trunk (r591996) was to transform
> a HashSet to a LinkedHashSet in
> o.a.m.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolutionResult.
> But when porting the fix back to 2.0.x branch (r592009), I found that
> such changes in DefaultArtifactCollector had not been ported from
> trunk to branch, then I did it, which can have such a reordering
> consequence.
>
> I just checked in DefaultArtifactCollector history, and found the
> change that has not been back-ported to 2.0.x branch:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/artifact/trunk/src/main/java/org/ap
>ache/maven/artifact/resolver/DefaultArtifactCollector.java?r1=379650&r2
>=512339&pathrev=591996&diff_format=h
>
> Was this intentional to helps ensure compatibility in 2.0.x branch?
>
> HTH to make right choices
>
> Hervé
>
> Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007, Daniel Kulp a écrit :
> > Brian,
> >
> > 2.0.8 seems to have re-ordered the classpath or something such that
> > if I have a unit test that does:
> > System.out.println(getClass().getResource(".").toString());
> > it prints out the directory in the target/classes dir instead of the
> > target/test-classes. With 2.0.5 - 2.0.7, it returned the
> > test-classes version.
> >
> > Now, I DO think the test is bogus and shouldn't depend on the
> > classpath ordering like that. However, this is a change that could
> > cause issues for people.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with
> > > 2.0.7, but I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll
> > > try and dig into it in a bit.
> > >
> > > Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > > 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate
> > > > > MNG-3259 but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a
> > > > > greater chance of breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this
> > > > > early in 2.0.9 so there is plenty of time for any issues to
> > > > > surface. I've placed a new build on
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous
> > > > > build. Please try it out and report any new issues found. If
> > > > > no new showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build
> > > > > later this week / early next week.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by "Brian E. Fox" <br...@reply.infinity.nu>.
Ultimately I think the intent was that the order be slightly controllable via the order in the dependencies list. If that's still the case, then it seems ok to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hervé BOUTEMY [mailto:herve.boutemy@free.fr]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:49 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Perhaps I know the code that changed the order:
while fixing "[MANTTASKS-22] ensure proper order of artifacts in
ArtifactResolutionResult", the fix in trunk (r591996) was to transform a
HashSet to a LinkedHashSet in
o.a.m.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolutionResult.
But when porting the fix back to 2.0.x branch (r592009), I found that such
changes in DefaultArtifactCollector had not been ported from trunk to branch,
then I did it, which can have such a reordering consequence.
I just checked in DefaultArtifactCollector history, and found the change that
has not been back-ported to 2.0.x branch:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/artifact/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/resolver/DefaultArtifactCollector.java?r1=379650&r2=512339&pathrev=591996&diff_format=h
Was this intentional to helps ensure compatibility in 2.0.x branch?
HTH to make right choices
Hervé
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007, Daniel Kulp a écrit :
> Brian,
>
> 2.0.8 seems to have re-ordered the classpath or something such that if I
> have a unit test that does:
> System.out.println(getClass().getResource(".").toString());
> it prints out the directory in the target/classes dir instead of the
> target/test-classes. With 2.0.5 - 2.0.7, it returned the test-classes
> version.
>
> Now, I DO think the test is bogus and shouldn't depend on the classpath
> ordering like that. However, this is a change that could cause issues
> for people.
>
> Dan
>
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with 2.0.7,
> > but I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll try and dig
> > into it in a bit.
> >
> > Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate
> > > > MNG-3259 but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a
> > > > greater chance of breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early
> > > > in 2.0.9 so there is plenty of time for any issues to surface.
> > > > I've placed a new build on http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build.
> > > > Please try it out and report any new issues found. If no new
> > > > showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build later this
> > > > week / early next week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
Perhaps I know the code that changed the order:
while fixing "[MANTTASKS-22] ensure proper order of artifacts in
ArtifactResolutionResult", the fix in trunk (r591996) was to transform a
HashSet to a LinkedHashSet in
o.a.m.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolutionResult.
But when porting the fix back to 2.0.x branch (r592009), I found that such
changes in DefaultArtifactCollector had not been ported from trunk to branch,
then I did it, which can have such a reordering consequence.
I just checked in DefaultArtifactCollector history, and found the change that
has not been back-ported to 2.0.x branch:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/artifact/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/resolver/DefaultArtifactCollector.java?r1=379650&r2=512339&pathrev=591996&diff_format=h
Was this intentional to helps ensure compatibility in 2.0.x branch?
HTH to make right choices
Hervé
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2007, Daniel Kulp a écrit :
> Brian,
>
> 2.0.8 seems to have re-ordered the classpath or something such that if I
> have a unit test that does:
> System.out.println(getClass().getResource(".").toString());
> it prints out the directory in the target/classes dir instead of the
> target/test-classes. With 2.0.5 - 2.0.7, it returned the test-classes
> version.
>
> Now, I DO think the test is bogus and shouldn't depend on the classpath
> ordering like that. However, this is a change that could cause issues
> for people.
>
> Dan
>
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with 2.0.7,
> > but I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll try and dig
> > into it in a bit.
> >
> > Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate
> > > > MNG-3259 but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a
> > > > greater chance of breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early
> > > > in 2.0.9 so there is plenty of time for any issues to surface.
> > > > I've placed a new build on http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build.
> > > > Please try it out and report any new issues found. If no new
> > > > showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build later this
> > > > week / early next week.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Brian,
2.0.8 seems to have re-ordered the classpath or something such that if I
have a unit test that does:
System.out.println(getClass().getResource(".").toString());
it prints out the directory in the target/classes dir instead of the
target/test-classes. With 2.0.5 - 2.0.7, it returned the test-classes
version.
Now, I DO think the test is bogus and shouldn't depend on the classpath
ordering like that. However, this is a change that could cause issues
for people.
Dan
On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Brian,
>
> CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with 2.0.7,
> but I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll try and dig
> into it in a bit.
>
> Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
>
> Dan
>
> > 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate
> > > MNG-3259 but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a
> > > greater chance of breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early
> > > in 2.0.9 so there is plenty of time for any issues to surface.
> > > I've placed a new build on http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build.
> > > Please try it out and report any new issues found. If no new
> > > showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build later this
> > > week / early next week.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Brian
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Brian,
CXF doesn't build with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. It builds fine with 2.0.7, but
I'm getting test failures with 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT. I'll try and dig into
it in a bit.
Also, the README.txt needs updating before you release it.
Dan
> 2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> > All,
> >
> > It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate MNG-3259
> > but I think this is an edge case and the fix has a greater chance of
> > breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early in 2.0.9 so there is
> > plenty of time for any issues to surface. I've placed a new build on
> > http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
> >
> >
> >
> > This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build.
> > Please try it out and report any new issues found. If no new
> > showstoppers occur, then I'll do the official build later this week
> > / early next week.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brian
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Raphaël Piéroni <ra...@gmail.com>.
worked for my build
Raphaël
2007/11/13, Brian E. Fox <br...@reply.infinity.nu>:
> All,
>
> It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate MNG-3259 but
> I think this is an edge case and the fix has a greater chance of
> breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early in 2.0.9 so there is
> plenty of time for any issues to surface. I've placed a new build on
> http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
>
>
>
> This new build fixes MNG-2277 in addition to the previous build. Please
> try it out and report any new issues found. If no new showstoppers
> occur, then I'll do the official build later this week / early next
> week.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
Re: moving forward with 2.0.8
Posted by Mauro Talevi <ma...@aquilonia.org>.
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> All,
>
> It's time to move forward with 2.0.8. I stopped to evaluate MNG-3259 but
> I think this is an edge case and the fix has a greater chance of
> breaking more stuff. I'd rather fix this early in 2.0.9 so there is
> plenty of time for any issues to surface. I've placed a new build on
> http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.8
>
No problems encontered.
+1 for release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org