commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Akolkar <>
Subject [all] Release process (was: svn commit: r788761)
Date Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:53:57 GMT
Changed the email subject, it seemed more appropriate IMO even though
historically its not our favorite topic. Multiple replies below ...

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Siegfried
Goeschl<> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> I think this things were discussed a couple of times before and my
> understanding of it
> +) we use the M2 release plugin to cut the RC
> +) the RC is using the "real" release tag because it is referenced in
> the released pom

Right, but with all said and the current pom(s), the best approach IMO
is use RCn tags, and svn cp passing tag to final name. I've done this
for a couple of releases, and while some may not be fond of it (having
RCn tag in pom) I think folks generally have been understanding about
the fact that it allows those who want to use the release plugin to do
so (I say this since those votes passed). I intend to continue using
the RCn tags with the current parent. Either way RMs choose, this is
not a deal breaker when voting AFAIAC.

> +) if the vote passes that the RC is the release and we move it just around
> If my view of things is wrong and/or incomplete then please update the
> wiki page (
> Any feedback appreciated

Thanks for keeping it updated :-)

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jochen
Wiedmann<> wrote:
> I made good experiences with Nexus in my last two releases. I'd
> recommend to use it.
> Basically, the process is the same than what you are doing until the
> point when the release
> is accepted. At that point you are basically done with Nexus. See

+1, we should move in that direction. The parent is still using apache
pom v4. It will be better for us to upgrade to v6 and cut a parent
release with any other needed changes before

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jochen
Wiedmann<> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Henri Yandell<> wrote:
>> The most important part to consider is 'What can go wrong?'.
> Ok, here's my reply to your question. Assuming that I am forced to
> follow the procedure as outlined by you. That means that I am forced
> not to use the maven-release-plugin. Consequently, I am forced to do a
> lot of manual steps, which would otherwise be completely automated.
> The likelyhood that something goes wrong would be dramatically
> increased, including production of invalid or corrupt artifacts at any
> stage in the process. I had my share of that and I don't want it any
> longer.

I know that some RMs don't use the release plugin. I do. There is
really nothing that forces RMs either way.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mark Struberg<> wrote:
> I personally don't get all the discussion here, because this very question has imho been
discussed a lot in the past (on commons and maven lists).

+1, having a hard time myself :-)

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Siegfried
Goeschl<> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> some thoughts along the line ...
> +) I would like to use the M2 release plugin


> +) I don't mind copying the release tag to a "RCX SVN" tag if the vote fails

Or having RCn in released pom :-)

> +) the <commons.rc.version> is work-around to distinguish multiple RCs

Yup, and more to do with lack of a solution for the apache m2 repo
like Nexus at the time.

> +) I know that the release process is not perfect but "perfect is the
> enemy of good"
> And my personal point of view - either we settle for one (documented and
> accepted) approach or you should positively accept that not all things
> are perfect. At the end of the day I want to get a release out of the
> door and not let my RC getting killed by endless discussion (btw - the
> last time it was the version numbering schema for commons-exec)

+1, yes please.


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

View raw message