You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> on 2008/08/24 17:39:17 UTC

Wagon

Hi,

Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty  
much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.

I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x,  
and then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.

I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use  
Wagon beta-3 with some fixes.

I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to  
make from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of  
the new Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.

Any objections?

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.

  -- Buddha


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by jv...@sonatype.com.
John,

You're doing the work for the release, so I see it as your call. I've
voiced my concern, the release is your baby.

> I've been thinking about this one all morning. When we moved the 2.0.x
> stuff in the RC branch up to beta-4, I had some serious reservations
> about moving forward with this code. Brett and I (among others, I'm
> sure, just don't have the thread at hand ATM) had some heated discussion
> about it, and as a result I took a pretty hard look at the code that
> went into beta-4...at the time, to find ammunition, but it didn't work
> out that way. :-)
>
> What I saw was a large new body of tests to cover fixed features. When I
> upgraded the RC branch again to use beta-4, I found I had little trouble
> working around the one issue I did find (which wasn't serious in any
> case, and which Brett had handled correctly in code I was trying to hack
> back in in a half-assed way). Brett found a second issue, and we worked
> around that too with minimal discomfort.
>
> In absolute terms, I'd say you're right that major new implementations
> shouldn't come out in beta releases, or even revisions (like we've done
> in Maven itself in the past). However, looking at the issue list you
> posted, there are some *very* important fixes in there that IMO would
> make going back to beta-2 throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I
> *think* it's worth the risk of going with beta-4 for the next release,
> and up to this point we've had several discussions about it, without any
> absolute vetoes.
>
> We're in this deep; I'd personally rather risk it knowing we have decent
> test coverage in wagon now, and understanding that for every bug we find
> we've fixed the use cases for hundreds of other users.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> -john
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty
>> much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
>>
>> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x,
>> and then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use
>> Wagon beta-3 with some fixes.
>>
>> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make
>> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new
>> Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
>> or who has said it,
>> not even if i have said it,
>> unless it agrees with your own reason
>> and your own common sense.
>>
>>  -- Buddha
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> John Casey
> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by jv...@sonatype.com.
John,

You're doing the work for the release, so I see it as your call. I've
voiced my concern, the release is your baby.

> I've been thinking about this one all morning. When we moved the 2.0.x
> stuff in the RC branch up to beta-4, I had some serious reservations
> about moving forward with this code. Brett and I (among others, I'm
> sure, just don't have the thread at hand ATM) had some heated discussion
> about it, and as a result I took a pretty hard look at the code that
> went into beta-4...at the time, to find ammunition, but it didn't work
> out that way. :-)
>
> What I saw was a large new body of tests to cover fixed features. When I
> upgraded the RC branch again to use beta-4, I found I had little trouble
> working around the one issue I did find (which wasn't serious in any
> case, and which Brett had handled correctly in code I was trying to hack
> back in in a half-assed way). Brett found a second issue, and we worked
> around that too with minimal discomfort.
>
> In absolute terms, I'd say you're right that major new implementations
> shouldn't come out in beta releases, or even revisions (like we've done
> in Maven itself in the past). However, looking at the issue list you
> posted, there are some *very* important fixes in there that IMO would
> make going back to beta-2 throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I
> *think* it's worth the risk of going with beta-4 for the next release,
> and up to this point we've had several discussions about it, without any
> absolute vetoes.
>
> We're in this deep; I'd personally rather risk it knowing we have decent
> test coverage in wagon now, and understanding that for every bug we find
> we've fixed the use cases for hundreds of other users.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> -john
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty
>> much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
>>
>> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x,
>> and then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use
>> Wagon beta-3 with some fixes.
>>
>> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make
>> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new
>> Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
>> or who has said it,
>> not even if i have said it,
>> unless it agrees with your own reason
>> and your own common sense.
>>
>>  -- Buddha
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> John Casey
> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I've been thinking about this one all morning. When we moved the 2.0.x 
stuff in the RC branch up to beta-4, I had some serious reservations 
about moving forward with this code. Brett and I (among others, I'm 
sure, just don't have the thread at hand ATM) had some heated discussion 
about it, and as a result I took a pretty hard look at the code that 
went into beta-4...at the time, to find ammunition, but it didn't work 
out that way. :-)

What I saw was a large new body of tests to cover fixed features. When I 
upgraded the RC branch again to use beta-4, I found I had little trouble 
working around the one issue I did find (which wasn't serious in any 
case, and which Brett had handled correctly in code I was trying to hack 
back in in a half-assed way). Brett found a second issue, and we worked 
around that too with minimal discomfort.

In absolute terms, I'd say you're right that major new implementations 
shouldn't come out in beta releases, or even revisions (like we've done 
in Maven itself in the past). However, looking at the issue list you 
posted, there are some *very* important fixes in there that IMO would 
make going back to beta-2 throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I 
*think* it's worth the risk of going with beta-4 for the next release, 
and up to this point we've had several discussions about it, without any 
absolute vetoes.

We're in this deep; I'd personally rather risk it knowing we have decent 
test coverage in wagon now, and understanding that for every bug we find 
we've fixed the use cases for hundreds of other users.

Just my $0.02

-john

Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty 
> much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
> 
> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, 
> and then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
> 
> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use 
> Wagon beta-3 with some fixes.
> 
> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make 
> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new 
> Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
> or who has said it,
> not even if i have said it,
> unless it agrees with your own reason
> and your own common sense.
> 
>  -- Buddha
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 

-- 
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:

> Hi,
> AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.
>
> I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a
> big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4.
>
> So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ?
>

Because it was patched quickly because problems were found. I know  
that beta-3 works.

> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're  
>> pretty much in
>> the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
>>
>> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon  
>> 1.0.x, and
>> then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to  
>> use Wagon
>> beta-3 with some fixes.
>>
>> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to  
>> make
>> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the  
>> new Wagon
>> changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
>> or who has said it,
>> not even if i have said it,
>> unless it agrees with your own reason
>> and your own common sense.
>>
>> -- Buddha
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.

  -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 25/08/2008, at 3:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

>
> On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
>> development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
>> worry more about the stability of a component that is already in  
>> place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see  
>> the point in that either.
>>
>
> I'm actually more worried about 2.0.x.

Ok, I missed that comment in your original email. Too much version  
soup :)

I still don't think there's a need to make any changes to the wagon  
versions now.

Still catching up on the other mail, but it depends on what happens  
with 2.0.10 as to what that means for wagon. Seems like we either go  
all the way back to 2.0.9, or push forward with what is already there  
and being tested. I'm pretty happy with what we've covered so far.

- Brett

>
>
>> Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been  
>> fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my  
>> changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven  
>> (WAGON-237).
>>
>> Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as  
>> 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But  
>> plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the  
>> release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when  
>> the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't  
>> really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that  
>>> have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried  
>>> the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to  
>>> happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant.
>>>
>>> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
>>> what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
>>> that we have problems when we do this.
>>>
>>> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
>>> what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should  
>>> have just cut the release and moved on.
>>>
>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>>>> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
>>>> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying  
>>>> to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are  
>>>> trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month  
>>>> ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent  
>>>> on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for  
>>>> release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out,  
>>>> we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're  
>>>>> going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a  
>>>>> beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1  
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is significant:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>>>
>>>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I  
>>>>> could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be  
>>>>> happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>>>> beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>>>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo  
>>>>>> and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance  
>>>>>> of changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>>>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brett Porter
>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good  
>>> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>
>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> the course of true love never did run smooth ...
>
> -- Shakespeare
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
> development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
> worry more about the stability of a component that is already in  
> place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the  
> point in that either.
>

I'm actually more worried about 2.0.x.

> Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed  
> (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes,  
> also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237).
>
> Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0  
> and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But  
> plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the  
> release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when  
> the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really  
> get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have  
>> cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new  
>> wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would  
>> just rather be safe then repentant.
>>
>> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
>> what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
>> that we have problems when we do this.
>>
>> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
>> what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should  
>> have just cut the release and moved on.
>>
>> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>>> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
>>> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>>>
>>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to  
>>> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying  
>>> to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you  
>>> were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on  
>>> rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release  
>>> again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting  
>>> time trying to figure out what to call things.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
>>>> with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
>>>> don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>>>
>>>> That is significant:
>>>>
>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>>
>>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I  
>>>> could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be  
>>>> happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>>>
>>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>>> beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo  
>>>>> and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of  
>>>>> changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brett Porter
>>> brett@apache.org
>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good  
>> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>
>> -- Paul Graham
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

the course of true love never did run smooth ...

  -- Shakespeare


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Jason, I'm confused. You replied to the same message you already  
replied to, not my subsequent message. I didn't even think we were  
talking about 2.0.x up until this point because I'd missed that in  
your original message.

Let me try and restate what I was saying.

You raised the issue as one of versioning. I don't think it's wise to  
change the versions now based on the fact releases have already  
occurred. That's nothing to do with the actual changes.

I think the right thing to use for anything other than 2.0.x is the  
latest release of Wagon. It seems from your last mail you have no  
objection there.

For 2.0.x, I think it entirely depends on what happens with the  
current RC cycle. Let's get past that first. If we're taking a step  
back from what's there now, I've no problem with pushing off the wagon  
changes to 2.1.x now that that exists. The situation of making the  
release available to users is completely different from when the  
change was first made in June and I wouldn't propose adding it to  
2.0.x if I were doing it today.

If we're pushing forward with the current RC as 2.0.10 then I would be  
reluctant to roll the wagon changes back out again. But, we can cross  
that bridge when we come to it.

If I've missed something let me know. I know you raised this concern  
initially, but I thought we had moved on already and I'd rather not  
keep reopening it.

Thanks,
Brett

On 25/08/2008, at 3:49 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

>
> On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
>> development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
>> worry more about the stability of a component that is already in  
>> place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see  
>> the point in that either.
>>
>> Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been  
>> fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my  
>> changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven  
>> (WAGON-237).
>>
>> Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as  
>> 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But  
>> plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the  
>> release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when  
>> the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't  
>> really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
>>
>
> You don't seem to be listening. Look at what happened with what were  
> intended to be simple changes with 2.0.x and look at where we are  
> how many weeks later. With all our integration tests, RCs and best  
> efforts things just manage to slip though. No one's fault, that's  
> just the way it generally goes here.
>
> The changes that have been made in Wagon have been run through the  
> same groove over and over again and we haven't gotten a huge number  
> of people testing the RCs. That's also human nature.
>
> I also said if we followed the path where what were truly bug fixes  
> could be separate from the major refactorings that would be fine to.  
> I know that when Maven 2.0.x is released with Wagon beta-XX it will  
> be the first time it's heavily vetted and I would rather not have it  
> be a surprise. We also made the decision with respect to Maven after  
> we ventured down the RC path. So hindsight is great. I just think  
> it's the prudent thing to do given it affects almost everything in  
> Maven.
>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that  
>>> have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried  
>>> the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to  
>>> happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant.
>>>
>>> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
>>> what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
>>> that we have problems when we do this.
>>>
>>> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
>>> what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should  
>>> have just cut the release and moved on.
>>>
>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>>>> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
>>>> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying  
>>>> to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are  
>>>> trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month  
>>>> ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent  
>>>> on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for  
>>>> release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out,  
>>>> we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're  
>>>>> going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a  
>>>>> beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1  
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is significant:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>>>
>>>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I  
>>>>> could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be  
>>>>> happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>>>> beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>>>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo  
>>>>>> and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance  
>>>>>> of changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>>>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brett Porter
>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good  
>>> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>>
>>> -- Paul Graham
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
> and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
>
>  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
> development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
> worry more about the stability of a component that is already in  
> place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the  
> point in that either.
>
> Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed  
> (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes,  
> also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237).
>
> Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0  
> and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But  
> plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the  
> release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when  
> the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really  
> get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
>

You don't seem to be listening. Look at what happened with what were  
intended to be simple changes with 2.0.x and look at where we are how  
many weeks later. With all our integration tests, RCs and best efforts  
things just manage to slip though. No one's fault, that's just the way  
it generally goes here.

The changes that have been made in Wagon have been run through the  
same groove over and over again and we haven't gotten a huge number of  
people testing the RCs. That's also human nature.

I also said if we followed the path where what were truly bug fixes  
could be separate from the major refactorings that would be fine to. I  
know that when Maven 2.0.x is released with Wagon beta-XX it will be  
the first time it's heavily vetted and I would rather not have it be a  
surprise. We also made the decision with respect to Maven after we  
ventured down the RC path. So hindsight is great. I just think it's  
the prudent thing to do given it affects almost everything in Maven.

> - Brett
>
> On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have  
>> cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new  
>> wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would  
>> just rather be safe then repentant.
>>
>> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
>> what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
>> that we have problems when we do this.
>>
>> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
>> what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should  
>> have just cut the release and moved on.
>>
>> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>>> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
>>> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>>>
>>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to  
>>> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying  
>>> to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you  
>>> were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on  
>>> rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release  
>>> again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting  
>>> time trying to figure out what to call things.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
>>>> with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
>>>> don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>>>
>>>> That is significant:
>>>>
>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>>
>>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I  
>>>> could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be  
>>>> happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>>>
>>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>>> beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo  
>>>>> and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of  
>>>>> changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brett Porter
>>> brett@apache.org
>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good  
>> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>
>> -- Paul Graham
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.

   -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Benjamin Bentmann <be...@udo.edu>.
Eugene Kuleshov wrote:

>   I am running on windows and got the same errors with b4 release. See
> details below.

Sounds familar to me ;-)
   http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-233


Benjamin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
I eventually got my Windows VM sorted out and repaired the unit test  
on trunk. It still needs improvement as Benjamin pointed out, however.

- Brett

On 28/08/2008, at 3:08 PM, Eugene Kuleshov wrote:

>
>
> brettporter wrote:
>>
>>> I took wagon 1.0-beta3 released code from the tag and run unit
>>> tests on it > and got failures.
>>> Do you have a theory how is that possible for a release?
>>
>> Not without more information on went wrong, no. Probably one of the
>> tests has some environmental requirement that should be fixed?
>>
>> FYI, 1.0-beta-4 is the latest release.
>>
>
>  I am running on windows and got the same errors with b4 release. See
> details below.
>
>  regards,
>  Eugene
>
>
> Running  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonGzipTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:  
> 0.172 sec
> Running org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest
> Tests run: 20, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:  
> 0.688 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
>
> Results :
>
> Failed tests:
>
> testStreamingWagon 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
>
> testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
>   
> testWagon 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
>
> testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
>
> Tests run: 21, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> --------------
>
> Test set:  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tests run: 20, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:  
> 0.688 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
> testStreamingWagon 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
> Time elapsed: 0.032 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
>  Unexpected method call
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|null|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|null|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testStreamingWagon\testStreamingWagon|test- 
> resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581078]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
> 	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
> 	at
> org 
> .easymock 
> .internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
> 	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .events 
> .TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java: 
> 106)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 530)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewerToStream(StreamWagon.java: 
> 222)
> 	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getToStream(StreamWagon.java: 
> 239)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.getStream(StreamingWagonTestCase.java: 
> 290)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .StreamingWagonTestCase 
> .streamRoundTripTesting(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:220)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .StreamingWagonTestCase 
> .testStreamingWagon(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:52)
>
> testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
> Time elapsed: 0.031 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
>  Unexpected method call
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|null|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|null|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder 
> \testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581140]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
> 	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
> 	at
> org 
> .easymock 
> .internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
> 	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .events 
> .TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java: 
> 106)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 530)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewerToStream(StreamWagon.java: 
> 222)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .StreamingWagonTestCase 
> .getIfNewerToStream(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:154)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .StreamingWagonTestCase 
> .testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:122)
>
> testWagon 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
> Time elapsed: 0.015 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
>  Unexpected method call
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581218]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
> 	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
> 	at
> org 
> .easymock 
> .internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
> 	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .events 
> .TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java: 
> 106)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 530)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 295)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 276)
> 	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewer(StreamWagon.java:97)
> 	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.get(StreamWagon.java:61)
> 	at org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.getFile(WagonTestCase.java: 
> 927)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.fileRoundTripTesting(WagonTestCase.java: 
> 1015)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.testWagon(WagonTestCase.java:237)
>
> testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder 
> (org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
> Time elapsed: 0.031 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
>  Unexpected method call
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder 
> \testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder 
> \testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
>
> transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/ 
> ]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight 
> \target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder 
> \testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
> = 18; mod = 1219895581265]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
> 	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
> 	at
> org 
> .easymock 
> .internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
> 	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon 
> .events 
> .TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java: 
> 106)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 530)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 295)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java: 
> 276)
> 	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewer(StreamWagon.java:97)
> 	at  
> org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.getIfNewer(WagonTestCase.java: 
> 294)
> 	at
> org 
> .apache 
> .maven 
> .wagon.WagonTestCase.testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder(WagonTestCase.java: 
> 268)
>
>
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wagon-tp19132013p19194281.html
> 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
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Eugene Kuleshov <eu...@md.pp.ru>.

brettporter wrote:
> 
>>  I took wagon 1.0-beta3 released code from the tag and run unit  
>> tests on it > and got failures.
>>  Do you have a theory how is that possible for a release?
> 
> Not without more information on went wrong, no. Probably one of the  
> tests has some environmental requirement that should be fixed?
> 
> FYI, 1.0-beta-4 is the latest release.
> 

  I am running on windows and got the same errors with b4 release. See
details below.

  regards,
  Eugene


Running org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonGzipTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.172 sec
Running org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest
Tests run: 20, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.688 sec
<<< FAILURE!

Results :

Failed tests:
 
testStreamingWagon(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
 
testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
  testWagon(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)
 
testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest)

Tests run: 21, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
--------------

Test set: org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 20, Failures: 4, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.688 sec
<<< FAILURE!
testStreamingWagon(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest) 
Time elapsed: 0.032 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: 
  Unexpected method call
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|null|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|null|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testStreamingWagon\testStreamingWagon|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581078]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
	at
org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.events.TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java:106)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java:530)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewerToStream(StreamWagon.java:222)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getToStream(StreamWagon.java:239)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.getStream(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:290)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.streamRoundTripTesting(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:220)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.testStreamingWagon(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:52)

testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest) 
Time elapsed: 0.031 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: 
  Unexpected method call
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|null|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|null|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder\testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581140]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
	at
org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.events.TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java:106)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java:530)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewerToStream(StreamWagon.java:222)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.getIfNewerToStream(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:154)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamingWagonTestCase.testWagonGetIfNewerToStreamIsOlder(StreamingWagonTestCase.java:122)

testWagon(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest) 
Time elapsed: 0.015 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: 
  Unexpected method call
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagon\testWagon|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581218]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
	at
org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.events.TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java:106)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java:530)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java:295)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java:276)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewer(StreamWagon.java:97)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.get(StreamWagon.java:61)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.getFile(WagonTestCase.java:927)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.fileRoundTripTesting(WagonTestCase.java:1015)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.testWagon(WagonTestCase.java:237)

testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder(org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.LightweightHttpWagonTest) 
Time elapsed: 0.031 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: 
  Unexpected method call
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]):
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581000]]): expected: 0, actual: 1
   
transferStarted(TransferEvent[GET|STARTED|Repository[http://localhost:10007/]|C:\dev\sonatype\24wagon-b5\wagon-providers\wagon-http-lightweight\target\test-output\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder\testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder|test-resource[len
= 18; mod = 1219895581265]]): expected: 1, actual: 0
	at org.easymock.MockControl$4.invoke(MockControl.java:148)
	at
org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:44)
	at $Proxy1.transferStarted(Unknown Source)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.events.TransferEventSupport.fireTransferStarted(TransferEventSupport.java:106)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.fireGetStarted(AbstractWagon.java:530)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java:295)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.AbstractWagon.getTransfer(AbstractWagon.java:276)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.StreamWagon.getIfNewer(StreamWagon.java:97)
	at org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.getIfNewer(WagonTestCase.java:294)
	at
org.apache.maven.wagon.WagonTestCase.testWagonGetIfNewerIsOlder(WagonTestCase.java:268)


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wagon-tp19132013p19194281.html
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: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 28/08/2008, at 12:39 PM, Eugene Kuleshov wrote:

>
> Brett,
>
>  I took wagon 1.0-beta3 released code from the tag and run unit  
> tests on it
> and got failures.
>  Do you have a theory how is that possible for a release?

Not without more information on went wrong, no. Probably one of the  
tests has some environmental requirement that should be fixed?

FYI, 1.0-beta-4 is the latest release.

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Eugene Kuleshov <eu...@md.pp.ru>.
Brett,

  I took wagon 1.0-beta3 released code from the tag and run unit tests on it
and got failures. 
  Do you have a theory how is that possible for a release?

  regards,
  Eugene



brettporter wrote:
> 
> Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
> development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
> worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place  
> for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point  
> in that either.
> 
> Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed  
> (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes,  
> also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237).
> 
> Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0  
> and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty  
> of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release,  
> and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others  
> are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you  
> are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wagon-tp19132013p19193317.html
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: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of  
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to  
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place  
for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point  
in that either.

Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed  
(WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes,  
also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237).

Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0  
and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty  
of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release,  
and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others  
are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you  
are trying to achieve that you can't do already.

- Brett

On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have  
> cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new  
> wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would  
> just rather be safe then repentant.
>
> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
> what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
> that we have problems when we do this.
>
> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
> what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should  
> have just cut the release and moved on.
>
> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
>> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>>
>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to  
>> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to  
>> achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were  
>> stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting  
>> significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again.  
>> Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time  
>> trying to figure out what to call things.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
>>> with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
>>> don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>>
>>> That is significant:
>>>
>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>
>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could  
>>> live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to  
>>> the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>>
>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>> beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>
>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>
>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>
>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo  
>>>> and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of  
>>>> changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>>
>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>
>>>> - Brett
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brett Porter
>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>
>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people  
> can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>
> -- Paul Graham
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 25/08/2008, at 2:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:

> http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
> can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3

Sure, but that was fixed in beta-4, along with the proxy one. I'm not  
aware of any outstanding issues?

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
That's a maven-artifact problem:

http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-224

On 24-Aug-08, at 9:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:

> http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
> can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3
>
> Milos
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>  
> wrote:
>> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have  
>> cropped
>> up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon  
>> and you
>> honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather  
>> be safe
>> then repentant.
>>
>> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
>> what was
>> used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we  
>> have
>> problems when we do this.
>>
>> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do  
>> what we
>> just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have  
>> just cut the
>> release and moved on.
>>
>> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
>>> want to
>>> go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling  
>>> versions and
>>> creating more confusion for no reason.
>>>
>>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to
>>> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying  
>>> to achieve
>>> or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were  
>>> stabilising, a
>>> couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant  
>>> parts, now
>>> you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig  
>>> in and
>>> help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call  
>>> things.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
>>>> with
>>>> 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
>>>> don't really
>>>> want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>>>
>>>> That is significant:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>>
>>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I  
>>>> could live
>>>> with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the  
>>>> 2.0.9 folks
>>>> using beta-2.
>>>>
>>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- 
>>>> beta-3 for
>>>> Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>>>> let
>>>> 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>>>> Proxies
>>>>> weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there  
>>>>> wasn't a
>>>>> test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got  
>>>>> fixed in
>>>>> beta-4.
>>>>>
>>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue
>>>>> (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234), but it hasn't been  
>>>>> confirmed
>>>>> yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brett Porter
>>> brett@apache.org
>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good  
>> people can fix
>> bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>>
>> -- Paul Graham
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.

  -- Unknown


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>.
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319
can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3

Milos

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped
> up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you
> honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe
> then repentant.
>
> I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was
> used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have
> problems when we do this.
>
> I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do what we
> just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the
> release and moved on.
>
> On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to
>> go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and
>> creating more confusion for no reason.
>>
>> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to
>> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve
>> or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a
>> couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now
>> you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and
>> help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with
>>> 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really
>>> want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>>
>>> That is significant:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>>
>>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live
>>> with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks
>>> using beta-2.
>>>
>>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3 for
>>> Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>
>>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let
>>> 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>>
>>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>>
>>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies
>>>> weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a
>>>> test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in
>>>> beta-4.
>>>>
>>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue
>>>> (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234), but it hasn't been confirmed
>>>> yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>>
>>>> - Brett
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brett Porter
>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>>
>>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix
> bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
>
>  -- Paul Graham
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have  
cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new  
wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would  
just rather be safe then repentant.

I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix  
what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case  
that we have problems when we do this.

I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do what  
we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have  
just cut the release and moved on.

On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't  
> want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point  
> fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
>
> Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to  
> stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to  
> achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were  
> stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting  
> significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead  
> of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to  
> figure out what to call things.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
>> with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
>> don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>>
>> That is significant:
>>
>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>>
>> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could  
>> live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to  
>> the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>>
>> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3  
>> for Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and  
>> let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>>
>>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and  
>>> there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of  
>>> changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>>
>>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brett Porter
>>> brett@apache.org
>>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
>> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
>> be omnipotent for a while.
>>
>> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people  
can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.

  -- Paul Graham


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want  
to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling  
versions and creating more confusion for no reason.

Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to  
stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to  
achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were  
stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting  
significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead  
of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to  
figure out what to call things.

Cheers,
Brett

On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going  
> with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I  
> don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
>
> That is significant:
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
>
> If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could  
> live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to  
> the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
>
> I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3  
> for Wagon 1.1.x.
>
> I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let  
> 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
>
> On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>>
>> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?  
>> Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and  
>> there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of  
>> changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
>>
>> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
>> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
> be omnipotent for a while.
>
>  -- Jakob Burckhardt
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with  
2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't  
really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.

That is significant:

http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544

If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could  
live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the  
2.0.9 folks using beta-2.

I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3  
for Wagon 1.1.x.

I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let  
2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.

On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

>
> On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
>
> Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies  
> weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there  
> wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That  
> got fixed in beta-4.
>
> John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
> ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------

A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.

   -- Jakob Burckhardt


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> proxies don't work properly in beta-4.

Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies  
weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there  
wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That  
got fixed in beta-4.

John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 
), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
proxies don't work properly in beta-4.

Arg, it's actually after beta-2 all the changes were made and there's  
no real separation between bug fixes, new implementations and features  
added.

On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:

> Hi,
> AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.
>
> I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a
> big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4.
>
> So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ?
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're  
>> pretty much in
>> the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
>>
>> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon  
>> 1.0.x, and
>> then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
>>
>> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to  
>> use Wagon
>> beta-3 with some fixes.
>>
>> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to  
>> make
>> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the  
>> new Wagon
>> changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
>> or who has said it,
>> not even if i have said it,
>> unless it agrees with your own reason
>> and your own common sense.
>>
>> -- Buddha
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: Wagon

Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Hi,
AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4.

I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a
big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4.

So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ?

--
Olivier

2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
> Hi,
>
> Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty much in
> the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x.
>
> I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, and
> then make trunk  Wagon 1.1.x.
>
> I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use Wagon
> beta-3 with some fixes.
>
> I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make
> from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new Wagon
> changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
> or who has said it,
> not even if i have said it,
> unless it agrees with your own reason
> and your own common sense.
>
>  -- Buddha
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org