commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mattias Jiderhamn <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [CLI] Release 1.0.1
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:30:55 GMT
At 2005-07-18 01:27, Simon Kitching:
>On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 19:31 +0200, Mattias Jiderhamn wrote:
> > Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >Simon Kitching wrote:
> > >>I am aware that a number of people have expressed doubt about whether
> > >>there should *be* a 1.0.1 release while others have backed it. This vote
> > >>is an opportunity to see which approach people want to go with.
> > >...
> > >My preferred option is to just fix the repository, replacing bad 1.0
> > >with good 1.0, and add a comment to the website.
> > >
> > >If there is an insistance on a uniquely named jar then my preferred
> > >option is to copy 1.0 to 1.0b _without_any_changes_whatsoever_.
> >
> > Although not a commiter I agree with the above, but if 1.0b is
> > released, I think there should be one tiny change: the reason for the
> > release should be added to the release notes. I hate when there is a
> > "new" release, and you can't find any information about the changes -
> > or if there are any.
>Stephen isn't suggesting a release. He's suggesting simply going into
>the dir that is replicated to ibiblio and doing:
>   cp the-real-jar commons-cli-1.0.jar
>Once ibiblio has replicated, any maven user without commons-cli-1.0.jar
>already cached on their machine will get the "real" 1.0 jar. Maven users
>with the "bad" 1.0.jar file already cached on their machine will end up
>still using that bad jar without any notifications.
>I'm not quite sure what the bit about "1.0b" means - whether Stephen is
>   mv commons-cli-1.0.jar commons-cli-1.0b.jar   # save the bad one
>   cp ${real-1.0-jar} commons-cli-1.0.jar        # replace the good one

What would be the point of that?

>... or
>   cp ${real-1.0-jar} commons-cli-1.0b.jar
>I hope it's not the latter, as people who download the 1.0 distribution
>bundle from apache or its mirrors will get a file named
>commons-cli-1.0.jar; I don't think it would be nice for this file to
>match the 1.0b jar but not the 1.0 jar from ibiblio.
>And we certainly can't update the RELEASE-NOTES.txt file without a new

I assumed Steven meant renaming the JAR in the site dist also. That 
would (at least in a sense) constitute a relase, and my objection was 
against not doing "any changes whatsoever" in that release but rather 
change the release notes. Making a 1.0b copy without any changes on 
the site or in the dist doesn't seem like a very good idea. 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message