geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:57:51 GMT
IIRC, the maven release plugin did some odd things to the POM; I  
recall seeing this in SMX.  I recommend that we do a dry run on a  
trash release and look at the results to see if we are happy with the  


On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:06 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.
> On 12/21/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> > >
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Other people's thoughts?
>> Matt Hogstrom
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet

View raw message