On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Nicolas Lalevée <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> Le mardi 16 septembre 2008, Xavier Hanin a écrit : > > I have built a release candidate for Ivy 2.0.0-rc1 > > > > You can download it from this URL: > > http://people.apache.org/~xavier/ivy/staging/2.0.0-rc1/ > > > > A maven 2 staging repo with this release is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~xavier/m2-staging-repo/ > > A staging eclipse update site with this release is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~xavier/updatesite-staging/ > > The bundle version is 2.0.0.cr1. > > > > Do you vote for the release of these binaries? > > > > +1 > > > [X] Yes > > [ ] No > > I have tested successfully Ivy in ant and in an Eclipse environment with > the > released IvyDE-alpha1. > > I have just concerns about the deployment of the updatesite. > > First the staging updatesite won't work as expected, as it is still > pointing > to the apache mirrors, which don't contains yet the new binaries. So the > Eclipse update installer won't show the new Ivy RC1. Actually this staging > updatesite will only work correctly as soon as deployed also on the > mirrors, > which make it not a very staging one. > It is in fact my fault, the documentation talk about non mirroring of the > staging updatesite, but the way to resolve it assume that the site.xml have > relative urls, but the current one have absolute ones. I will fix it. Indeed, I dumbly followed the steps in the documentation you wrote. If you can tell me what to put in the site.xml, I'll update it so that others can test it. > > And I have found an issue with the signature of an artifact: > > updatesite-staging/plugins/org.apache.ivyde.eclipse_2.0.0.alpha1.jar.pack.gz > I think that you launch the optimize task, but it was not signed again. I > think the better way to work with it is to svn-revert the changes done by > the > optimize task for the already released jars, and then no need to sign it > again. Indeed, I only signed the new release, I thought the current IvyDE release wouldn't be touched. Hence I've svn reverted these files on my working copy, and uploaded them in the update site. Since this is not what the vote is really on anyway, I don't think we need to cast a new vote. If anybody thinks casting a new vote is necessary, please tell me so. Xavier > I will update the documentation about this step. > > Nicolas > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant BordeauxJUG co leader - http://www.bordeauxjug.org/ Blogger - http://xhab.blogspot.com/ Apache Ivy Creator - http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
