ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "antoine@gmx.de" <anto...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2
Date Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:56:09 GMT
Hi I think the bintray resolver is part of the future release.

Antoine Levy-Lambert

----- Reply message -----
From: "JBaruch" <jbaruch@jfrog.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 3:47 PM

Sorry to nag here, but any chance you can sneak the bintray resolver in?
Now, when it has documentation and everything?
Pretty please?

Baruch.

--
JFrog Developer Advocate
www.jfrog.com
+972544954353
@jbaruch <https://twitter.com/jbaruch/>
http://linkd.in/jbaruch

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org
> wrote:
>
>
> > Le 17 déc. 2014 à 04:09, Antoine Levy Lambert <antoine@gmx.de> a écrit
:
> >
> > Nicolas, Jean-Louis, what are your thoughts ?
> >
> > The problem reported by Stefan with the ivy.xml in the source archive
> must be caused by something in the build process replacing the ivy.xml of
> the source tree with an expanded version of the same file generated when
> the <ivy:publish/> task runs ?
>
> The purpose of this change is that it fixes the dependencies of Ivy. I see
> no particular harm here.
>
> But as Stefan, generally speaking, I prefer the source release to be an
> extract of the source repository. So there is no possible confusion.
>
> > I guess a minor edit in the build file to make this modified version of
> ivy.xml go somewhere under the build folder should address this issue for
> this release and the next ones.
> >
> > I have not spent myself a lot of time on ivy yet but I would like to
> spend some in 2015 - or maybe even next week if my kids are busy out of the
> house …
> >
> > I also know how it feels when one creates a release candidate and some
> minor problems are found and one has to again go through 20 steps in a
> ReleaseInstructions document …
>
> Actually releasing Ivy is quite straight forward, no issues with that.
> See: http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html <
> http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html>
> Probably the signing of the artifacts can be more automatic. I have seen
> there is ant target for that but I haven’t tested it yet.
>
> What trouble me more is what is the exact process to push artifacts into
> Maven repo after the release. And we’ll need to figure out how to push it
> into the Eclipse updatesite too.
>
> > But I am sure we will get there finally.
>
> I am sure too. We have to either be patient or actively act on it,
> depending on our available time.
>
> > On Dec 14, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> We should be using signed tags (git tag -s or -u) rather than
> >> lightweight tags for releases.  I know we haven't cut any releases from
> >> git so far, so we'll be learning as we go along.
>
> I do not know how it works, but I’ll figure it out. And update the release
> documentation.
>
> Nicolas
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message