commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz" <>
Subject Re: [DBCP] 1.2.2 RC1 available for review
Date Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:26:21 GMT
On 1/23/07, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> > I have created a release candidate for DBCP 1.2.2.
> No KEYS file (I got your key from Math). So this is mostly a reminder
> to add yourself to the DBCP one. .asc's look good once I found the
> key.

Yes, will do that.

You're using the old way of release - nowadays we're svelte and
> modern. We create the release as if it was the real thing - 1.2.2
> rather than 1.2.2-rc1, upload to a directory with 1.2.2-rc1/ and tag
> it 1.2.2-rc1 , and then rollback the versions in svn.  jar/pom wouldn't
> go into the snapshot repo then though - just put them in the same
> directory as the rc.

Me likes old way - I don't remember agreeing that having binaries, tars,
jars, etc floating around with "release" names was a good thing.  Even if
only in home directory, I do not like this.  I want people to download and
*test* the RC, which is unsanitary if it has a release name.  When the music
has stopped and we are voting on a release package, then I am fine putting
the actual bits out there to vote on, which I agree is a good thing.  Could
be I am just arguing about timing, but to me an RC is an RC - not a final

I also don't like the rollback idea above. That looks like an abuse of scm
to me.  Of course, I may be missing some important subtlety, in which case I
will revise my view of how revision history should work ;-)

I suspect this still needs documenting. Shame on me (and others who've
> done the releases this way :) ). I wonder how Maven-2 is going to
> affect it.
> I committed a change for the based on trying
> to use Ant. Very minor - hopefully not something that would be an
> inconvenience.
> Src builds happily with Ant and Maven. Exceptions with Ant, but I'm
> assuming it's okay as the build completes.
> MD5s pass.
> This page should mention 1.2.2:
> <>

Good catch.  Yes, will fix.

and a 1.2.2.html page is needed.
> The two links to javadocs in the navbar point to the same javadoc.
> Either they shouldn't, or one should be removed.

OK, I can get rid of one of them.

Otherwise - looks good.



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