Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67473 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2006 23:12:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Dec 2006 23:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 71772 invoked by uid 500); 21 Dec 2006 23:12:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 71739 invoked by uid 500); 21 Dec 2006 23:12:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 71728 invoked by uid 99); 21 Dec 2006 23:12:17 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:12:17 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [63.208.196.171] (HELO outbound.mailhop.org) (63.208.196.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:11:32 -0800 Received: from adsl-074-229-183-095.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net ([74.229.183.95] helo=[192.168.0.179]) by outbound.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxX3n-000Hkw-7Z for dev@geronimo.apache.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:47 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 74.229.183.95 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: hogndos Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: <00EA6A4E-0459-4503-AFD3-0BFC4ACE4372@visi.com> <22d56c4d0612210611q1a2c3251n6f4839c8c5d66186@mail.gmail.com> <458A9866.8000708@apache.org> <7E0E8306-21D4-472F-806F-6AAE1CFAA915@hogstrom.org> <3442223F-B81D-45A2-8737-3F677E1EC7F6@visi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <328ADB2D-DF7F-4B2D-A48B-737B5C96A2B2@hogstrom.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Matt Hogstrom Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46 -0500 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 matt@hogstrom.org