Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=NokOXeMd7N/zyatzmkgFq2qiGqqByqEbH2NDS4aJA2yf68uK7JGHniLxD3mzO73IK/
         J6QazNUVFL7xcQpqapKXERP9/UzjwKz/dM4TJ3/aBuh9ESLMJC0uQkCiCiGQtkPOC09G
         ThyRnSTM5CgdPwlGUPYlc+d3KCgqG44LHMvJQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D692EA3.2040100@free.fr>
References: <4D678137.7050108@apache.org>
	<4D692638.3040405@gmail.com>
	<4D692EA3.2040100@free.fr>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=vS3QiGpMqXpmNgZf8thS5n+gmK7xQN1BgnMyk@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release math 2.2 based on RC5
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 26 February 2011 16:47, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 26/02/2011 17:11, Phil Steitz a =E9crit :
>> 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-05=
1/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 UT=
C
>>>
>>> [ ] +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. =A0The code is good. =A0Builds and
>> tests fine. Sigs are good. =A0Release contents are good. =A0But the user
>> guide packaging is not as good as 2.0-2.1, IMO. =A0The 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. =A0Just 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. =A0On 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. =A0The 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. =A0The broken links / appearance issues
>> are not enough for -1, or even -0, but I would rather ship the
>> cleaner version. =A0I 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.

Nexus is normally used with mvn deploy, but it also allows for manual
upload, in case that helps.

So one could use the "test-deploy" profile to create the artifacts
locally, and do any required adjustments before uploading.

> 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.
>
> 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 ?
>
> 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