geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:27:56 GMT

On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:37 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There were several files missing source license headers. I've  
>>>>> fixed in branches/2.1
>>>>
>>>> 2.1??
>>>
>>> Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> . They would both merit a -1 from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is the code in svn?
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2
>>>
>>> Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would  
>>> follow our previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason  
>>> for using a different format?
>>
>> release plugin defaults
>
> OK. Then in absence of any other reasons, I think we should be  
> consistent with the naming of our previous releases.

If you mean the previous main geronimo releases, I strongly disagree.   
We have no reason I can see to avoid following maven defaults here.   
With the exception of the main geronimo release, previously done  
through an arcane and IMO incomprehensible process, everything we've  
released in the last year or so has used the release plugin default  
tag locations of <artifactid>-<version>.

thanks
david jencks

>
> --kevan


Mime
View raw message