Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bruce.snyder@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.241 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=nMbCW/DGxiot2HEw5/oDEhk0jGFalHS7fX/ycAj9KiTgn41neFdfWH/IcHiUO9Q+ig
         XWtxUI8DMGsErz7XiOP4bodW5Wv/cg8m4EOTt9wK6BgGBa+4SFlZRVkKZtZ3Lqbp6ur2
         ZV8AGOgA1Q0Vz7+zm44moxgeLNlwQ6XX5/Yqo=
Message-ID: <7b3355cb0809090928y1d343b87v515bf6ba986b473@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:28:27 -0600
From: "Bruce Snyder" <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ release process - two queries
In-Reply-To: <3a73c17c0809090232t61f52d7au58afff6407cd1e3e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <3a73c17c0809090232t61f52d7au58afff6407cd1e3e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In cutting a first release candidate of AMQ 5.2 two small issues arise
> that mean a re-cut.
>
> 1) I accepted the maven release default version numbers, and based of
> the parent pom the svn tag is activemq-parent-5.2.
> I guess I should have inserted a different value at the prompt during
> release to make it activemq-5.2 , but is a little error prone.
> I am wondering if the parent pom changed its name to activemq, how
> damaging would that be?
> From a release perspective, it means that we just hit return (accept
> defaults) during the release execution.
> Maven activemq dependencies are typically on activemq-core. Would
> anyone notice a change to the name of the parent pom?

The assembly is named apache-activemq so I don't think we should
change the name of the activemq-parent to just activemq. We should
just document this in the release guide:

http://activemq.apache.org/release-guide.html#ReleaseGuide-CreatingtheActiveMQ5.xand4.xRelease,Newmethodusingreleaseandstagingplugins

> 2) the number of digits in the version number, why the extra 0?
> I see 4.1, then 5.1.0, but in the poms, we have 5.2. Has this been
> discussed and what is the outcome? I like the idea of keeping the
> version digits at a minimum.
> 5.1, 5.1.0, 5.1.1 etc. but not 5.1.0.

+1 for continuing the use of three digit versioning.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/

Blog: http://bruceblog.org/