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 (nike.apache.org: domain of jak-commons-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible <Joerg.Schaible@scalaris.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:06:46 +0200
Organization: Scalaris AG
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <kjes62$qki$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <515441B5.2090801@apache.org> <kj7g75$run$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <kj7gju$u9g$1@ger.gmane.org> <5157501D.2000502@apache.org>
 <CAOGo0Vbg3K77FW0pvMi0wpeW7d_Ln6a4FwYO1r1wRtJLOsBotA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5157D6D8.5040406@apache.org> <kje2i6$9te$2@ger.gmane.org>
 <515AD2BD.8090603@apache.org> <kjemgu$qu8$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <515AE8B7.5010706@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
User-Agent: KNode/4.8.5

Hi Mladen,

Mladen Turk wrote:

> On 04/02/2013 03:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> 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 <mturk@apache.org> 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 -Dimplementation.build="`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.
>>
> 
> I'm not trying to break the build convention.
> All I'm saying is that we should build from foo-src.tar.gz rather then
> from SVN. This is at least the proof of concept if our users will be able
> to build the same stuff. Otherwise make no sense to release sources if for
> building one needs to do svn export from ASF site.

This is what I normally test for different compilers before voting. Actually 
it is good, that we ensure that it builds from the distributes sources 
tarball, but as long as we deliver such automated data in the manifest, we 
should really build from a tagged checkout (that's what the Maven release 
plugin actually does).

> And BTW, build number can use multiple sources and its primary usage
> is with continuous integration. Our release version is build number in
> this case.

We configured the build to take it from the current svn number to reflect 
the unique state of the repository. An entry like

=========== %< =============
Implementation-Build: UNKNOWN_BRANCH@r??????; 2013-03-28 13:53:43+0100
=========== %< =============

will give the immediate impression, that something did go wrong with the 
build. I'd rather drop the entry completely.

- Jörg


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