commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:30:10 GMT
Hi Mladen,

Mladen Turk wrote:

> On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Mladen Turk wrote:
>>> On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk <> wrote:
>>>>> Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the
>>>>> manifest at the first place.
>>>> It shows that the build was done from the relevant tag.
>>> mvn -DbuildNumber=1234 -DscmBranch=54678  ...
>>> It doesn't show a thing. I can put there whatever I like anyhow.
>> The build-helper plugin sets the properties automatically gathering the
>> info from a checkout. It is not meant to be set manually.
> Anyhow, IMO this metadata is useless.
> For example my company (and vast majority of other vendors) use source
> .tar.gz and produces .jar (and signs it for security purposes)
> This is obviously not done using SVN so we always have a UNKNOWN SCM tag
> inside manifest. Of course this is usually handled by invoking
> mvn -Prelease"`date -R`" ...
> As you can see, makes no sense to have something if its easily overridden,
> particularly if someone thinks this is some kind of proof the binaries
> were build from some particular branch or tag.

Which is a valid assumption using Maven and the build-number plugin, since 
in Maven it is all about convention.

If we simply talk about creating that jar, I can alternatively use simply 
javac.exe, a text editor of my choice for the manifest and jar.exe to 
produce it. So the possibility to "overrride" the build process is IMHO not 
a valid argument.

As RM you're absolutely free to cut a release without the build number, but 
don't expect me any longer to give a positive vote. Just my 2¢.

- Jörg

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

View raw message