On 11/12/2007, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2007 9:44 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/8/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 08/12/2007, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip/> > > > > > > > > I've been adding clirr reports after the fact (running clirr at > > > > command line) so folks can glance at changes. I agree it would be > good > > > > to add a report to the site, I'll need to look at m1 plugin, get it > > > > going etc. > > > > > > > > > > OK, understood. > > > > > > Which reminds me - what about the RAT report? > > > > > <snap/> > > > > Ran RAT on the tag, that report has been added (see > > commons-scxml-0.7-rat-report.txt) here: > > > > http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc1/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup, doap not necessary. PROPOSAL and STATUS are archival things > that > > > > don't really pertain to any release (actually, STATUS is more cruft > > > > than anything else ;-). pom.xml not in since I personally haven't > used > > > > the m2 build a lot (but I know atleast 'mvn install' works so I > guess > > > > it could be added). > > > > > > s/could/should/ - please ;-) > > > > > <snip/> > > > > :-) > > > > I'll cut RC2 mid next week (to allow for any other feedback between > > now and then) that has the pom.xml in the source distros. Please feel > > free to try out the pom and update it as you see fit within the next > > 2-3 days (I haven't tried the m2 site for example, don't intend to > > either for v0.7 etc.). > > +1 from me to include the pom.xml > > I just ran mvn site assembly:assembly (on trunk) and it all looked > good except that the 0.7 release menu was missing from the site - so I > just added it (copied from navigation.xml). > > The only issue I could see was the cobertura (http://tinyurl.com/2a9ctf) > one:Al > > http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc1/site/cobertura/js/
I thought at first that the JS files were only present on the web-site, but that is included in the binary distribution. One way to get round the problem of releasing the JS files would be to exclude cobertura from the release archive. I would not have thought it was essential to have it in the archive, as it's available on the website. Just a thought. otherwise looks good. > > Niall > > > > > I looked at the src zip and the 8 jpegs you list seem to be in > there. > > > > Can you point directly to the file that doesn't have them? > > > > > > Sorry, I was wrong ... > > > > > > There was a problem with the extraction process - the files were > > > there, but for some reason they were in a different directory - > > > SCXML-ST instead of scxml-stopwatch. > > > > > <snap/> > > > > Yup, that'd mess with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Me too, that report generation may not be working. Will have to look > > > > into it at some point (I think we're fairly complete on Javadocs in > > > > general). > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > Maybe drop the report if it does not show anything useful (and avoid > > > possible future questions about it) > > > > > <snip/> > > > > Sounds good (I'll probably take out both reports, Javadoc Report and > > Javadoc Warnings Report). > > > > > > -Rahul > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
