commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool 2.0 RC4 as 2.0
Date Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:28:09 GMT
On 11/06/2013 03:20 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Thomas Neidhart
> <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On 11/05/2013 01:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> A change to the component id to pool2 required a new RC. The only other
>>> change was some improvements to the Ant build.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Pool 2.0 RC4 is available for review here:
>>>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/ (r3419)
>>>
>>>  Maven artifacts are here:
>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-073/
>>>
>>> Details of changes since 1.6 are in the release notes and changelog:
>>>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>
>>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/commons-pool-2.0-RC4/changes-report.html
>>>
>>>  The tag is here:
>>>   http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POOL_2_0_RC4/
>>>   (r 1538827)
>>>
>>>  Site:
>>>   http://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/commons-pool-2.0-RC4
>>>   (Broken links to Javadoc versions expected)
>>>
>>>  KEYS:
>>>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>
>>>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>>>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now
>>>
>> [x] +1 Release these artifacts
>>
>> Regarding the rat plugin and the related warnings:
>>
>> add this to the pom before making the site and deploying it (reporting
>> section):
>>
>> <plugin>
>>    <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId>
>>    <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId>
>>    <configuration>
>>      <excludes>
>>        <exclude>site-content/**/*</exclude>
>>      </excludes>
>>    </configuration>
>> </plugin>
>>
> 
> 
> This magic and more RAT magic is provided in commons-parent 32, which RC4
> does NOT use. The CP change is in SVN, why not cut another release? That
> should do it, finally, and cleanly :)

afaik it is not mandatory to only publish the latest release tag as
site. He could just do that:

 * publish site based on RC4 tag
 * re-publish site based on latest trunk (with corrections)

Most of our components are published from trunk, which is also perfectly
fine as long as the component has links to the latest released javadocs
and changelogs imho.

Thomas

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


Mime
View raw message