Maven 2.x Verifier Plugin

review plugin documentation

Details

  • Type: Task Task
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Minor Minor
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: None
  • Fix Version/s: 1.0
  • Component/s: None
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    2

Activity

Hide
Denis Cabasson added a comment -

Documentation patch to comply with maven docck plugin

TODO: faq (no questions yet), maven-plugin:2-SNAPSHOT migration (would require maven:2-0-5-SNAPSHOT, not available here).

Show
Denis Cabasson added a comment - Documentation patch to comply with maven docck plugin TODO: faq (no questions yet), maven-plugin:2-SNAPSHOT migration (would require maven:2-0-5-SNAPSHOT, not available here).
Hide
Vincent Siveton added a comment -

Some issues about the patch.

Inside:

 
Index: E:/Projets/OSS/maven-verifier-plugin ...

It should be:

 
Index: maven-verifier-plugin ...

FYI
http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-m2-development.html#Creating%20and%20submitting%20a%20patch

Thanks!

Show
Vincent Siveton added a comment - Some issues about the patch. Inside:
 
Index: E:/Projets/OSS/maven-verifier-plugin ...
It should be:
 
Index: maven-verifier-plugin ...
FYI http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-m2-development.html#Creating%20and%20submitting%20a%20patch Thanks!
Hide
Denis Cabasson added a comment -

Sorry about that.

Following yesterday's discussion "What patch program do people use on Windows XP?" on dev@maven, I stopped using eclipse to generate patch files (which contains full paths) and went back to use svn command line.

Here is the new version, with relative paths (and the right name according to maven conventions).

Show
Denis Cabasson added a comment - Sorry about that. Following yesterday's discussion "What patch program do people use on Windows XP?" on dev@maven, I stopped using eclipse to generate patch files (which contains full paths) and went back to use svn command line. Here is the new version, with relative paths (and the right name according to maven conventions).
Hide
Denis Cabasson added a comment -

Updated patch with relative path names and right name.

Show
Denis Cabasson added a comment - Updated patch with relative path names and right name.
Show
Vincent Siveton added a comment - Staging site: http://people.apache.org/~vsiveton/maven-verifier-plugin/
Hide
Dennis Lundberg added a comment -

Vincent, did you apply this patch or did you just stage a site? I can't find this patch in SVN. I've got some changes I would like to make.

Show
Dennis Lundberg added a comment - Vincent, did you apply this patch or did you just stage a site? I can't find this patch in SVN. I've got some changes I would like to make.
Hide
Vincent Siveton added a comment -

Dennis, I waited the faq to apply the patch...
I committed, so feel free to work on it.

Show
Vincent Siveton added a comment - Dennis, I waited the faq to apply the patch... I committed, so feel free to work on it.
Hide
Dennis Lundberg added a comment -

I've commited several changes to the documentation. My work is finished now and I've staged the new site here:
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/maven-verifier-plugin/

We're still missing that FAQ though.

Show
Dennis Lundberg added a comment - I've commited several changes to the documentation. My work is finished now and I've staged the new site here: http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/maven-verifier-plugin/ We're still missing that FAQ though.
Hide
Denis Cabasson added a comment -

We should change the usage.apt file, as it seems the maven-verifier-plugin is by default bound to the integration-test phase.
So there is not really any point in declaring an executions/execution block in the build config.

IMHO, let the plugin be bound to its default phase, is integration-test, rather than forcing its bind to the verify phase.

(my wrong here, I didn't detect this when updating the documentation. I guess a patch isn't useful there )

Show
Denis Cabasson added a comment - We should change the usage.apt file, as it seems the maven-verifier-plugin is by default bound to the integration-test phase. So there is not really any point in declaring an executions/execution block in the build config. IMHO, let the plugin be bound to its default phase, is integration-test, rather than forcing its bind to the verify phase. (my wrong here, I didn't detect this when updating the documentation. I guess a patch isn't useful there )
Hide
Dennis Lundberg added a comment -

Denis, should we remove the whole <executions> element?

Show
Dennis Lundberg added a comment - Denis, should we remove the whole <executions> element?
Hide
Dennis Lundberg added a comment -

I've added a small FAQ now. The plugin now passes the docck:check. I'm going to close this issue. Please open another issue for any remaining stuff.

Show
Dennis Lundberg added a comment - I've added a small FAQ now. The plugin now passes the docck:check. I'm going to close this issue. Please open another issue for any remaining stuff.

People

Vote (0)
Watch (1)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved:

Time Tracking

Estimated:
17h
Original Estimate - 17 hours
Remaining:
17h
Remaining Estimate - 17 hours
Logged:
Not Specified
Time Spent - Not Specified