bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Stumm <roman.st...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Package naming of incoming codebase
Date Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:09:58 GMT
Am 28.03.10 14:40, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
> Hi all guys,
> package move has been done, I took advantage to update a small subset
> of metadata on parent pom, according to new apache info.
> Once terminated, I also reported the BVAL-11 issue that I wasn't able
> to fix alone, as Kevan suggested I committed the code so the community
> can help to resolve the issue.
> One small question: is (agimatec) 0.9.6 version still fine for bval?
> I'd propose to change it to 0.1-SNAPSHOT, how does it sound to you?
> Best regards, have a nice Sunday!!!
> Sim
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Simone Tripodi
> <simone.tripodi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi Donald,
>> I 100% support your idea, I'd raise the same question once terminated
>> this task :)
>> Thanks for your hint, going to commit in a while!!! :)
>> Have a nice Sunday,
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Donald Woods<dwoods@apache.org>  wrote:
>>      
>>> I was thinking about collapsing everything into one artifact.  The
>>> current code structure is because agimatec-validation contains the core
>>> engine/metadata handler, which was shared with pre-JSR303 code that
>>> Agimatec had, while the agimatec-jsr303 was the add-on layer to fulfill
>>> the spec requirements.
>>>
>>> For now, lets rename the artifacts as:
>>> agimatec-validation -->  bval-core
>>> agimatec-jsr303 -->  bval-jsr303
>>>
>>> We'll use another JIRA to combine everything or BVAL-1 to split things
>>> into an impl and api jar.....
>>>
>>> I'll try to take a look at the test failures tonight or tomorrow, but go
>>> ahead with the commit and we'll figure it out from there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/10 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Hi Kevan,
>>>> thank you very much for your feedbacks!!! I'm going to commit the code
>>>> at this status, I just need to know: if org.apache.bval fits well in
>>>> groupId, which artifacts Id do we have to use? Do you have any
>>>> suggestion?
>>>> Thanks a lot!!!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kevan Miller<kevan.miller@gmail.com>
 wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> Hi all mates,
>>>>>> I'm going to complete the issue but I need you help for 2 small issues
I have:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) should I move also groupId and artifactId in poms?
>>>>>>              
>>>>> Yes, I definitely think so.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> 2) in the jsr-303 module I've 28 failures over 81 tests, I attached
on
>>>>>> this email the .txt junit reports, is anyone able to explain me why
>>>>>> they fail so I can fix them?
>>>>>>              
>>>>> Sorry, I really haven't looked at the code at all, yet... IMO, it's absolutely
fine for you to commit the code in it's current form. At this stage, I don't think anyone
would object that the code has test failures. Plus committing will allow others to help out...
No reason for this to be solely on your shoulders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>>>
>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>            
>>>>          
>>>        
>>      
Hi Simone,

thanks for renaming! I fixed Issue 11, so that all tests are successful now.

Roman

Mime
View raw message