geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:35:43 GMT

On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that  
>> enlightened.
>> On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> FYI, traditionally, all release votes are for the source code  
>>> package and
>>> only that package.  Once the source code version is set in stone,  
>>> binaries
>>> and assorted other release artifacts can be generated by individual
>>> committers without a vote if the group trusts them to do so and they
>>> have a signed key.  Some groups might require a vote on binaries  
>>> as well,
>>> but the ASF only requires a vote on the source.
>> I like voting on binaries for most our stuff as our build is  
>> massively complex.  But in this case I figured I'd give the "do  
>> you trust me to build/publish" angle a try as these are tiny  
>> little jars that aren't complicated and it's way easier to just  
>> run the maven publish command on them after the vote than it is to  
>> create a "staging" build for each one and figuring out a non- 
>> trivial way to publish them later.
>> -David
> Thanks...this was the missing context for me.  I spect I'm not the  
> only one who doesn't hang on the incubator thread so this helps.
> I'm confused about Roy's comments as there are specific  
> requirements for including legal stuff in the binaries.  Sounds  
> like he is advocating everyone building their own copy and  
> validating it.
> Since this is a change in process it would be good to outline how  
> you propose it working for the benefit of the many on the list that  
> don't have the benefit of your thinking apart from the reference  
> above.

It's pretty simple as Guillaume mentions.  You just run 'mvn  
release:prepare release:perform'.

> I would very much like to see us change the process and the specs  
> are probably a really good place to start.  I'm +1 for changing the  
> process.  I would very much like to get the new process documented  
> so that you don't end up becoming the release dog and have everyone  
> making up a new way each time which is currently where we are at.

Me too.  To be clear it's not a new process, just new to us.  Pretty  
much we just get the branch ready to go then use the maven release  
plugin once the vote is complete (mvn release:prepare release:perform).

Anyway, as this is different than what we're used to I'll just go  
ahead and do the staging thing so the vote can continue.


View raw message