Re: [jira] Commented: (RIVER-317) Deploy Apache River artifacts to Maven repositories (both release and snapshot)

[Peter Firmstone <ji...@zeus.net.au>]

Hi Jeff,

Agree to 4: I can't see a problem with adding this patch now, including 
it in AR2 then patching it later if need be. 

Jeff Ramsdale (JIRA) wrote:
>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12758740#action_12758740 ] 
>
> Jeff Ramsdale commented on RIVER-317:
> -------------------------------------
>
> I wouldn't swear they are perfect, but I hope they are a good start. Would love to have them validated by someone. Some questions:
>
> 1) What is the process for applying these poms to the artifacts and rolling them out?
> 2) Can we set up snapshots to deploy too, with CI? (optional, to start)
> 3) Is there anyone who is able to validate these poms before we push?
> 4) Rather than waiting for AR2 can we push the current artifacts now as a test-run for a later AR2 push? That gets the artifacts out there so they can be tested by downstream consumers.
>
>   
>> Deploy Apache River artifacts to Maven repositories (both release and snapshot)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: RIVER-317
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-317
>>             Project: River
>>          Issue Type: Task
>>          Components: Web site and infrastructure
>>    Affects Versions: AR2, AR3
>>            Reporter: Jeff Ramsdale
>>             Fix For: AR2
>>
>>         Attachments: river-poms.patch
>>
>>
>> It would be valuable if Apache River artifacts were deployed to a Maven repository upon release. It would be even better if snapshot builds were also deployed to a snapshot repository by Hudson.
>> See thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/200908.mbox/<e2...@mail.gmail.com>
>>     
>
>   

Re: language level?

[James Grahn <jg...@simulexinc.com>]

1.5 was the consensus.   If you want 1.6 (due to features, fixes, or 
performance), you're free to make the case for it.

Peter Firmstone's tally as we were discussing it:
--------
Those in favour of using Java 6 features:

Jeremy Easton-Marks
Greg Wonderly
James Grahn

Those in favour of using Java 5 features:

Dennis Reedy
Jim Waldo
Jonathan Costers
Greg Trasuk
Niclas Hedhman
Dan Rollo
Greg Wonderly
Jukka Zitting
Sean Landis
Peter Firmstone
James Grahn


Those who would like to see continued support for  JRE 1.4 (bytecode
only, using Retrotranslator):

Patrick Wright
Wade Chandler
Peter Firmstone
--------

jamesG

Zsolt Kúti wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I can not find a mail archive search function, that's why this question
> is here: has there been a consensus about what level is targeted with
> development? 1.5 or 1.6?
> 
> Thanks
> Zsolt
> 

language level?

[Zsolt Kúti <ku...@t-online.hu>]

Hello,

I can not find a mail archive search function, that's why this question
is here: has there been a consensus about what level is targeted with
development? 1.5 or 1.6?

Thanks
Zsolt