commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons SCXML 0.8
Date Sat, 17 May 2008 20:44:03 GMT
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for your time Phil, comments below ...
>>
>> On 5/16/08, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>  > This is a vote to release the following artifacts as Commons SCXML 0.8:
>>>  >
>>>  >  http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.8/RC2/
>>>  >
>>>  > ------------
>>>
>>> > [ X] +1 for release
>>>
>>> > [ ] +0
>>>  > [ ] -0
>>>  > [ ] -1 for release because...
>>>  > ------------
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>> Checked sigs, hashes, tag, m1, m2, Ant builds - all fine.  I assume
>>>  the OSGi stuff in the jar manifest is OK, despite funny formatting.
>>>  Please someone verify.
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> AIUI, the OSGi plugin just enforces the manifest line width
>> restrictions. Ofcourse, happy to have more people verify.
>>
>>
>>>  I guess its the release plugin that does this:
>>>  <connection>scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/scxml/tags/SCXML_0_8_RC2</connection>
>>>   ?
>>>
>> <snap/>
>>
>> Yes, but under my tutelage, so I'll take all the blame on this one :-)
>>
>> I did spend some time thinking about this beforehand. Of these two approaches:
>>
>> 1. Tag each RC as if it were the final / release tag. Delete tag if
>> RC++, and redo.
>> 2. Tag RCs as RCs. Copy tag for passing RC as release tag.
>>
>> ... I personally prefer the latter, since:
>>
>>  * I don't like the idea of a release tag existing before a release
>> passes muster
>>  * I think its good housekeeping to retain RC tags
>>
>>
>>>  The site builds fine from the source distro, but will point to the RC2
>>>  tag in project info.  I guess this is OK, since the tag is going to be
>>>  copied on release.
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Yes, it'll be copied to SCXML_0_8 if vote passes. The way the Commons
>> SCXML site on c.a.o is deployed, its always the latest / snapshot
>> (there are separate pointers in site navbar for release documentation,
>> such as Javadocs), so the c.a.o site will have the correct bits in
>> project info. Folks building from 0.8 source will indeed get the RC2
>> tag (the tag will not be removed).
>
> IMO this is another reason to not use the release plugin - along with
> the facts that 1) if you don't remember to do a "dryRun" it may remove
> the license header and 2) it generates an awful lot of commit noise to
> just change the version number. The only downside to manually
> releasing IMo is that you have to hand-edit the maven-metadata.xml.
>
> While its not a show-stopper that the pom points to the RC2 tag - its
> not desirable at all - but if people to want to use the release plugin
> then IMO it would be much better to do the svn tag manually and skip
> the "release:prepare" step altogether. AIUI you can run the
> release:perform and specify the tag on the command line, something
> like
>
>    mvn -Prc -Dtag=SCXML_0_8_RC2 release:perform

My mistake, I think its connectionUrl, rather than tag:
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/examples/perform-release.html

Niall


Alternatively, from looking at the docs, theres also an option to not update the

> Niall
>
>
>> Finally, if anyone wants to discuss tagging with the release plugin
>> any more (though not too much more :-), I'm happy to do that in a new
>> thread.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message