Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org does not designate 216.86.168.183 as permitted
 sender)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Nicolas_Lalev=C3=A9e?= <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_21C250EF-42D5-4123-86B5-3BFF1010E3E7"
Message-Id: <DD9C6840-635B-4C79-AEA5-0E9A8B271384@hibnet.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:25:18 +0100
References: <5B8B9EF9-B9FD-4148-8702-64EA3C0C745A@hibnet.org>
 <871to2h5p7.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <290A6BF5-0A1E-49EA-952E-AA0ACA5D71B0@gmx.de>
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <290A6BF5-0A1E-49EA-952E-AA0ACA5D71B0@gmx.de>

--Apple-Mail=_21C250EF-42D5-4123-86B5-3BFF1010E3E7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


> Le 17 d=E9c. 2014 =E0 04:09, Antoine Levy Lambert <antoine@gmx.de> a =
=E9crit :
>=20
> Nicolas, Jean-Louis, what are your thoughts ?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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 =85
>=20
> 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 =85

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=92t tested it yet.

What trouble me more is what is the exact process to push artifacts into =
Maven repo after the release. And we=92ll 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:
>=20
>> 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=92ll figure it out. And update the =
release documentation.

Nicolas


--Apple-Mail=_21C250EF-42D5-4123-86B5-3BFF1010E3E7--