geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:09:00 GMT
Well... If we acutaly left tags alone and did not change them or retag then the tag would be
sufficent. But to get an exact codeline for a specific release you need the tag + rev. 



-----Original Message-----
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:55:08
Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0

I would imagine that a branch which is ready to be released would be  
quiessed and so there would be no need for an svn rev # or am I  
missing something?


On Dec 21, 2006, at 3:19 PM, wrote:

> IMO using a svn rev # for a release is a good idea, that with a tag  
> ensures that code for that exact release can always be found at a  
> later time.
> --jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Hogstrom <>
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46
> Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
>> because people can build them locally, check that everything
>> is ok (for legal reasons), and vote.  This is much more difficult
>> for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be applied.
>> This works well, I think, if the release process is just
>>   mvn release:prepare release:perform
>> which should be the case for all projects ideally.
>> The benefit is that the jars will be deployed to their final
>> destination
>> as part of the relase, without having to tweak / corrupting maven
>> repository metadata by copying from a staging repo.
> For my part, I'd prefer to follow this approach going forward.  I
> agree with Guillaume that it may not totally work for Geronimo unless
> we choose an SVN number as the release point so people can track
> changes to a branch.
> Having been through the release process a few times I think that
> using Maven to generate the artifacts is so much simpler and
> automagically updating the repo is far easier as well.
> I'd like to propose (in a separate thread) that we adopt this process
> going forward for specs.  If the vote succeeds then I think David
> could follow it for these specs as a test case.
> Matt Hogstrom

View raw message