commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maison...@free.fr>
Subject [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] Release math 2.2 based on RC5
Date Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:08:55 GMT
Le 26/02/2011 18:29, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/26/11 11:47 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 26/02/2011 17:11, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 2/25/11 5:15 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>> Tag:
>>>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_2_2_RC5/>
>>>>
>>>> All artifacts in Nexus staging repository:
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-051/org/apache/commons/commons-math/2.2/>
>>>>
>>>> site:
>>>> <http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/2.2/RC5/>
>>>>
>>>> Clirr report:
>>>> <http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/math/2.2/RC5/clirr-report.html>
>>>>
>>>> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 2011-02-28T11:00:00 UTC
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>>> [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>>> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>>> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am struggling a little on this one.  The code is good.  Builds and
>>> tests fine. Sigs are good.  Release contents are good.  But the user
>>> guide packaging is not as good as 2.0-2.1, IMO.  The reason that I
>>> introduced the siteMods stuff in 2.0 was so that we could bundle
>>> just the user guide as a self-contained set of web pages in the
>>> binary distro.  Just file filtering from a full site build results
>>> in broken links in the nav and the appearance of the whole site,
>>> with only the user guide content available.  On the other hand, to
>>> fix this, you need to do what the build script does or something
>>> similar (at least I couldn't find a way to get it to work
>>> otherwise), which means you can't just have maven build and deploy
>>> the whole release without additional scripting or commands.  The nav
>>> links in the user guide into the user guide itself work and the
>>> links from the user guide to the bundled javadoc work, so this is
>>> really just an appearance/useability issue.
>>>
>>> So I guess I am +0 on this RC.  The broken links / appearance issues
>>> are not enough for -1, or even -0, but I would rather ship the
>>> cleaner version.  I don't know how nexus works, but I would expect
>>> that it should be possible to generate just the binary distro and
>>> push it out there somehow if you decide to do another RC.
>> OK. Perhaps I could try what Sebb suggested: using the siteMods/pom.xml
>> and siteMods/site.xml stuff directly from maven. I could even do the
>> site manually with your script and later use mvn deploy.
>>
>> I will give it a try first without cancelling this RC vote. If I succeed
>> in having a fully functional menu with only the required links, then
>> I'll cancel the vote and push an RC6.
> If you just run the script, it will create the correctly bundled
> user guide.  The previous RCs had it fine.  You could then just push
> out the binary zip/tgz.  I almost suggested that you just do that
> and restart the VOTE, since no changes to the tag are necessary to
> fix this.  IIUC, Sebb's suggestion just simplifies the script.  You
> still need to execute "mvn site" separately using the modified
> resources to get the user guide built.

Fine. I just check if I could do a mix by manually creating the site
using the script as a template and leaving it in the target/site
directory, then switch to mvn deploy. It seems to work, at least with a
local test-deploy.

So I cancel this vote now.

I will still do an RC6 tag since I have to change the publish target
dates in changes.xml and doap_math.rdf (and hence the RC number in one
property of pom.xml also).

I am really sorry to be so slow in getting this release out and force
everybody to vote again and again. Next time, I'll try to get it right
faster.

Luc

>> What should we do about the duplicate javadoc in binary ? Do we keep
>> both the jar and the expanded version in the binary zip or do we
>> suppress one of them ? If we suppress one, which one ?
> 
> I am not one of them, but some users seem to like to have both
> source and javadoc jars included in the binary distributions.  I am
> not sure why, but I think it has to do with IDE integration.  It
> doesn't bother me personally to include these jars.  It *would*
> bother me not to have apidocs in the distro itself, though.
> 
> Phil
> 
>> Luc
>>
>>> Phil
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 


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


Mime
View raw message