commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release FileUpload 1.1.1-RC1
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:55:02 GMT
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/2/06, Martin Cooper <martinc@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that
> > > might
> > > > > solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.propertiesfile:
> > > > >
> > > > > maven.changelog.date=lastRelease
> > > > > maven.changelog.type=date
> > > > >
> > > > > The plugin looks in the changes.xml file to find the previous
> release.
> > > > > Fileupload has such a file so that's good. I tried this on
> fileupload
> > > > > and the plugin choked because of an unparseable date "2006-05-??",
> > > which
> > > > > is the date set for the 1.1.1 release. So I changed that date to
> "In
> > > > > SVN" and ran maven site again and the plugin correctly picked up
> > > > > "2005-12-24" from the 1.1 release.
> > > >
> > > > This does work, though it means the changes report has In SVN in and
> > > > not the date. Still, I can generate this to get that page and put it
> > > > in later on the main build.
> > > >
> > > > Any objections to that?
> > >
> > > Yes its messy and liable to go wrong when you forget to do something
> > > when cutting the actual release.
> >
> >
> > Given that you're never going to know the actual release date until
> you're
> > actually cutting the release, the date in the change log will _always_
> have
> > to be updated by the RM at that time. It wouldn't be any worse to have
> "In
> > SVN" than "2006-05-??" (especially given that it's now June ;). I used
> to
> > use "Pending" for the date value until I cut the release.
> >
> > And it seems to me that using "lastRelease" is always correct, so that
> seems
> > like the right value to use. I just didn't know about it until Dennis
> > mentioned it.
>
> The problem is that at the moment of the release, lastRelease should
> still mean the previous release but it doesn't. At that moment it
> suddenly means that release and you get a really small changelog.


Well that's brilliant. I wonder if anyone can come up with a use case for
that behaviour... ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


Easiest solution is for the release manager to change
> project.properties to list the lastRelease date just prior to building
> the release as Niall suggested.
>
> (Well, easiest easiest would be to dump the report as too much trouble
> ;)  )
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message