If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
Should something be wrong with the release-plugin we'll be consistently
wrong :-) But bugs are meant to be fixed, so that shouldn't be a problem
in the long run.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Based on couple of JIRA comments, it seems there still isn't consensus
about a release process using m2 at Commons. I'll try to outline the
process.
<outline>
[A] Release prep
[B] Stage artifacts and site, to some location TBD (entire commands
below, not abridged etc.):
mvn -Prc release:prepare
mvn -Prc release:perform
mvn -Prc site-deploy
Or, if you don't care about the release plugin, after setting final
versions in [A]:
mvn -Prc deploy
mvn -Prc site-deploy
[C] Vote
[D] Go live
mvn stage:copy ...
mvn site-deploy
</outline>
Does this fit your mental model? If not, why not?
Please keep the discussion at a "vision" level. Yes, the outline is
flawed (all votes don't pass, there are loops etc.) Yes, required pom
changes are not discussed. But, once process is OK'ed, we will make
the poms do the right thing :-)
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
