Missing lift-json-ext?
Derek Chen-Becker
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Failed to resolve artifact.
Missing:
----------
1) net.liftweb:lift-json-ext:jar:3.0-SNAPSHOT
Try downloading the file manually from the project website.
Then, install it using the command:
mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=net.liftweb -DartifactId=lift-json-ext -Dversion=3.0-SNAPSHOT -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file
Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file there:
mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=net.liftweb -DartifactId=lift-json-ext -Dversion=3.0-SNAPSHOT -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]
Path to dependency:
1) net.liftweb:lift-mongodb:jar:3.0-SNAPSHOT
2) net.liftweb:lift-json-ext:jar:3.0-SNAPSHOT
How do I build lift-json-ext so that I can commit this?
Thanks,
Derek
Ross Mellgren
-Ross
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
David Pollak
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Blog: http://goodstuff.im
Surf the harmonics
Ross Mellgren
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
Ross Mellgren
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
Ross Mellgren
David Pollak
I can, if we have consensus it's the thing we want to do.
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
David Pollak
Well, it's +1 from me. If we do move master to point to the current 2.x-2.8_dev branch, we should probably create a new branch called "3.x_dev" that points to the latest master commit, so that we don't orphan the current master commit line. Let's see what Indrajit says.
Indrajit Raychaudhuri
1. Since the talk and general consensus has been to move 2.x-2.8_devel
to master I assume we are talking of a scala 2.8.x only version on
master.
2. Separately, we had discussed that we would have at least the first
2011 release supporting 2.7 and 2.8 (possibly lift 2.2).
3. Given the current state of deviation between 2.7 and 2.8, it is
difficult to have them in a single branch.
4. #2 and #3 means we cannot have 2.2 on master (unless we have master
for 2.2 on 2.8 and a separate 2.2_2.7 for 2.2 on 2.7 but that would be
confusing imho).
So can we consider something like this:
a. 2.x-2.7_devel and 2.x-2.8_devel continue to serve till 2.2 release
(on 2.7 and 2.8)
b. master staying on what would eventually become 3.x on 2.8.x
Feel free to put in your thoughts here. I admit, I haven't tracked all
the posts so I might have missed one or two crucial ones on this.
Apologies beforehand if I did.
- Indrajit
On Sep 30, 8:09 am, David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Well, it's +1 from me. If we do move master to point to the current
> > 2.x-2.8_dev branch, we should probably create a new branch called "3.x_dev"
> > that points to the latest master commit, so that we don't orphan the current
> > master commit line. Let's see what Indrajit says.
>
> Well, the current master is more is less orphaned, so I would just throw it
> away... I've put nothing on it and it hasn't been kept up to date with the
> commits during the 2.1 development.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Derek
>
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, David Pollak <
> > feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Ross Mellgren <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I can, if we have consensus it's the thing we want to do.
>
> >> Let's get consensus with an extra special vote from Indrajit who has to do
> >> a lot of the build mechanics and make sure it doesn't mess with anything
> >> he's got set up.
>
> >>> -Ross
>
> >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
>
> >>> Ah, right. I forgot that "master" is just a pointer to a commit :) So,
> >>> who's going to do it?
>
> >>> Derek
>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Ross Mellgren <dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I would think not merge so much as replace wholesale.
>
> >>>> -Ross
>
> >>>>>> > For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en>
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>>> Groups "Lift" group.
> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to <lif...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>> lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en>
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Lift, the simply functional web framework <http://liftweb.net/>
> >>>>> Beginning Scala <http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890>
> >>>>>http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> >>>>> Blog: <http://goodstuff.im/>http://goodstuff.im
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "Lift" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to <lif...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>> <liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "Lift" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to <lif...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en>
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "Lift" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "Lift" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>>> .
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >>> "Lift" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >>> "Lift" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> .
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> >> Blog:http://goodstuff.im
> >> Surf the harmonics
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Lift" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> .
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Lift" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > .
> >http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
Jeppe Nejsum Madsen
<indr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, Derek kicked me twice offline so I'll have to weigh in here :)
>
> 1. Since the talk and general consensus has been to move 2.x-2.8_devel
> to master I assume we are talking of a scala 2.8.x only version on
> master.
>
> 2. Separately, we had discussed that we would have at least the first
> 2011 release supporting 2.7 and 2.8 (possibly lift 2.2).
>
> 3. Given the current state of deviation between 2.7 and 2.8, it is
> difficult to have them in a single branch.
>
> 4. #2 and #3 means we cannot have 2.2 on master (unless we have master
> for 2.2 on 2.8 and a separate 2.2_2.7 for 2.2 on 2.7 but that would be
> confusing imho).
>
> So can we consider something like this:
> a. 2.x-2.7_devel and 2.x-2.8_devel continue to serve till 2.2 release
> (on 2.7 and 2.8)
> b. master staying on what would eventually become 3.x on 2.8.x
>
> Feel free to put in your thoughts here. I admit, I haven't tracked all
> the posts so I might have missed one or two crucial ones on this.
> Apologies beforehand if I did.
Your proposal means we have to keep 3 branches up to date, probably
not a good use of resources :-)
On a more personally note: When I return to do some serious Scala/Lift
work (hopefully in a not too distant future!) I plan to migrate
completely off of 2.7 and I simply don't have the resources to
contribute new code etc. for both 2.7 and 2.8.
So for me, the sooner we drop 2.7 for new features, the better. Note
that this doesn't mean we should drop support for 2.7. I'm well aware
that not everybody are able to upgrade to 2.8 atm. But imho, we should
soon only backport selected bugfixes to the 2.7 branch.
/Jeppe
Tim Nelson
> So can we consider something like this:
> a. 2.x-2.7_devel and 2.x-2.8_devel continue to serve till 2.2 release
> (on 2.7 and 2.8)
> b. master staying on what would eventually become 3.x on 2.8.x
I like this except the master branch part. Is it absolutely necessary
to have a master branch?
If we are going to keep 2 branches going it would be nice to keep them
similar in name.
Whatever we end up using, I'd prefer to only have 2 branches to deal with.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote:
...
> So for me, the sooner we drop 2.7 for new features, the better. Note
> that this doesn't mean we should drop support for 2.7. I'm well aware
> that not everybody are able to upgrade to 2.8 atm. But imho, we should
> soon only backport selected bugfixes to the 2.7 branch.
+1
Tim
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
Timothy Perrett
Derek Chen-Becker
David Pollak
As others in this thread have pointed out, the current 3.0 (master) is not really representative of anything worthwhile. I would propose moving 2.x-2.8_devel to master and moving 2.x-2.7_devel to master_2.7.7. That way, when we drop support for 2.7.7 in the future, we don't need to make any further changes to the branches since master will already be the 2.8 mainline.
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Indrajit Raychaudhuri
move to master.
Am sending a separate notification so that any commit that has been done
on master only can be taken care of by the respective owner.
- Indrajit
> <mailto:lif...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:liftweb%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Lift" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:lif...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:liftweb%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Blog: http://goodstuff.im
> Surf the harmonics
>
David Pollak
Just to clarify on this point. I do all my development against 2.7. Then I use Git cherrypicking to copy the changes to 2.8 and do a little testing against 2.8.
Having 2 live branches incurs about a 15% development overhead for me rather than a 100% overhead.
So for me, the sooner we drop 2.7 for new features, the better. Note
that this doesn't mean we should drop support for 2.7. I'm well aware
that not everybody are able to upgrade to 2.8 atm. But imho, we should
soon only backport selected bugfixes to the 2.7 branch.
/Jeppe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Derek Chen-Becker
Derek
Derek Chen-Becker
Jeppe Nejsum Madsen
<feeder.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> On a more personally note: When I return to do some serious Scala/Lift
>> work (hopefully in a not too distant future!) I plan to migrate
>> completely off of 2.7 and I simply don't have the resources to
>> contribute new code etc. for both 2.7 and 2.8.
>
> Just to clarify on this point. I do all my development against 2.7. Then I
> use Git cherrypicking to copy the changes to 2.8 and do a little testing
> against 2.8.
This is useful for minor fixes I think. But
1) You can't use any of the nice new 2.8 functionality (Collections,
named/default params, package objects etc), which I think can be put
to good use in Lift.
2) You can't use a 2.8 toolchain. Most IDEs doesn't support 2.7 any
more (I think? At least that's true for Eclipse). Developing on 2.8
might be doable but you run the risk of inadvertently using some of
2.8 features.
> Having 2 live branches incurs about a 15% development overhead for me rather
> than a 100% overhead.
/Jeppe
Derek Chen-Becker
/Jeppe
Indrajit Raychaudhuri
Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
> Edits done:
>
> https://www.assembla.com/spaces/liftweb/wiki?id=liftweb&wiki_id=Process_Tips_and_Tricks_for_comitting_code
> <https://www.assembla.com/spaces/liftweb/wiki?id=liftweb&wiki_id=Process_Tips_and_Tricks_for_comitting_code>
Awesome, thanks!
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Derek Chen-Becker
> <dchen...@gmail.com <mailto:dchen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm updating the commit process page on the Wiki right now to cover
> this. I do the exact same thing and I think that that's a pretty
> easy way to do it (work on 2.7, cherry-pick to 2.8)
+1. once you get hold of cherry-pick and rebase, you suddenly start
feeling git rock harder :)
>
> Derek
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, David Pollak
> <feeder.of...@gmail.com
> lif...@googlegroups.com <mailto:lif...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:liftweb%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Blog: http://goodstuff.im
> Surf the harmonics
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "Lift" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lif...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:lif...@googlegroups.com>.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> liftweb+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:liftweb%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.