sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2007, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2007, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 18/11/2007, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
This is the second attempt to release commons-logging 1.1.1.
Changes since the last try:
- The Maven 2 build now packages LICENSE and NOTICE files in the correct
place in all distributables
- A couple of minor bugs were fixed
Release Notes:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310484&styleName=Html&version=12312160
Tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/logging/tags/commons-logging-1.1.1/
Staged repository:
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/staging-repository-commons-logging/
Distribution files:
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/commons-logging-1.1.1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/commons-logging-1.1.1.tar.gz.asc
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/commons-logging-1.1.1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~dennisl/commons-logging-1.1.1.zip.asc
Are these the files that are to be released via Apache mirrors?
Yes.
If so, then there should be separate binary and source archives, as
per the previous release 1.1:
http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/logging/
No, there will be only one distributed archive which contains both
source and binaries. The archive will be available in .tar.gz and .zip
formats. This was decided back when we discussed what should go into a
distribution.
AFAICS Logging will be the only Commons project that will no longer
have separate binary and source archives.
I think that's a retrograde step.
Here a link to the discussion I mentioned earlier:
http://www.nabble.com/-all--What%27s-in-a-distribution--tf2910639.html#a8132562
Thanks - I was having problems finding that.
Yeah, it seems to have vanished from the Apache archive :-/
There does not seem to have been a final decision (or even summary) of
the e-mail thread, which is a pity. Probably ought to be on the
developer section of the commons site.
Consensus was not reached, so I didn't bother writing any docs for it.
However:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--all--What%27s-in-a-distribution--p8133008.html
does ask for the whole of SVN to be included.
AFAICS, only one message supported having a single combined archive;
at least one other message referred to the need to keep archive sizes
small.
There was a wide variety of opinions, but no clear direction. I have no
objections towards changing the assemblies. I just don't have the energy
to push for a standard for Commons assemblies at this time. So I would
like to use the assembly that we have now for this release.
Please cast your votes!
[ ] +1, Let's do it
[ ] -1, Nah
Here's my +1
--
Dennis Lundberg
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dennis Lundberg
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
