commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Commons SCXML 0.7 RC1 available
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:04:56 GMT
On 11/12/2007, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 9:44 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/8/07, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 08/12/2007, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip/>
> > > >
> > > > I've been adding clirr reports after the fact (running clirr at
> > > > command line) so folks can glance at changes. I agree it would be
> good
> > > > to add a report to the site, I'll need to look at m1 plugin, get it
> > > > going etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, understood.
> > >
> > > Which reminds me - what about the RAT report?
> > >
> > <snap/>
> >
> > Ran RAT on the tag, that report has been added (see
> > commons-scxml-0.7-rat-report.txt) here:
> >
> >  http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc1/
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yup, doap not necessary. PROPOSAL and STATUS are archival things
> that
> > > > don't really pertain to any release (actually, STATUS is more cruft
> > > > than anything else ;-). pom.xml not in since I personally haven't
> used
> > > > the m2 build a lot (but I know atleast 'mvn install' works so I
> guess
> > > > it could be added).
> > >
> > > s/could/should/ - please ;-)
> > >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > I'll cut RC2 mid next week (to allow for any other feedback between
> > now and then) that has the pom.xml in the source distros. Please feel
> > free to try out the pom and update it as you see fit within the next
> > 2-3 days (I haven't tried the m2 site for example, don't intend to
> > either for v0.7 etc.).
>
> +1 from me to include the pom.xml
>
> I just ran mvn site assembly:assembly (on trunk) and it all looked
> good except that the 0.7 release menu was missing from the site - so I
> just added it (copied from navigation.xml).
>
> The only issue I could see was the cobertura (http://tinyurl.com/2a9ctf)
> one:Al
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc1/site/cobertura/js/


I thought at first that the JS files were only present on the web-site, but
that is included in the binary distribution.
One way to get round the problem of releasing the JS files would be to
exclude cobertura from the release archive.
I would not have thought it was essential to have it in the archive, as it's
available on the website.

Just a thought.

otherwise looks good.
>
> Niall
>
> > > > I looked at the src zip and the 8 jpegs you list seem to be in
> there.
> > > > Can you point directly to the file that doesn't have them?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I was wrong ...
> > >
> > > There was a problem with the extraction process - the files were
> > > there, but for some reason they were in a different directory -
> > > SCXML-ST instead of scxml-stopwatch.
> > >
> > <snap/>
> >
> > Yup, that'd mess with it.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Me too, that report generation may not be working. Will have to look
> > > > into it at some point (I think we're fairly complete on Javadocs in
> > > > general).
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > Maybe drop the report if it does not show anything useful (and avoid
> > > possible future questions about it)
> > >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > Sounds good (I'll probably take out both reports, Javadoc Report and
> > Javadoc Warnings Report).
> >
> >
> > -Rahul
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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