On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for your time Phil, comments below ... >> >> On 5/16/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > This is a vote to release the following artifacts as Commons SCXML 0.8: >>> > >>> > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/scxml/0.8/RC2/ >>> > >>> > ------------ >>> >>> > [ X] +1 for release >>> >>> > [ ] +0 >>> > [ ] -0 >>> > [ ] -1 for release because... >>> > ------------ >>> > >>> >>> >>> Checked sigs, hashes, tag, m1, m2, Ant builds - all fine. I assume >>> the OSGi stuff in the jar manifest is OK, despite funny formatting. >>> Please someone verify. >>> >> <snip/> >> >> AIUI, the OSGi plugin just enforces the manifest line width >> restrictions. Ofcourse, happy to have more people verify. >> >> >>> I guess its the release plugin that does this: >>> >>> <connection>scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/scxml/tags/SCXML_0_8_RC2</connection> >>> ? >>> >> <snap/> >> >> Yes, but under my tutelage, so I'll take all the blame on this one :-) >> >> I did spend some time thinking about this beforehand. Of these two >> approaches: >> >> 1. Tag each RC as if it were the final / release tag. Delete tag if >> RC++, and redo. >> 2. Tag RCs as RCs. Copy tag for passing RC as release tag. >> >> ... I personally prefer the latter, since: >> >> * I don't like the idea of a release tag existing before a release >> passes muster >> * I think its good housekeeping to retain RC tags >> >> >>> The site builds fine from the source distro, but will point to the RC2 >>> tag in project info. I guess this is OK, since the tag is going to be >>> copied on release. >>> >> <snip/> >> >> Yes, it'll be copied to SCXML_0_8 if vote passes. The way the Commons >> SCXML site on c.a.o is deployed, its always the latest / snapshot >> (there are separate pointers in site navbar for release documentation, >> such as Javadocs), so the c.a.o site will have the correct bits in >> project info. Folks building from 0.8 source will indeed get the RC2 >> tag (the tag will not be removed). > > IMO this is another reason to not use the release plugin - along with > the facts that 1) if you don't remember to do a "dryRun" it may remove > the license header and 2) it generates an awful lot of commit noise to > just change the version number. The only downside to manually > releasing IMo is that you have to hand-edit the maven-metadata.xml. > > While its not a show-stopper that the pom points to the RC2 tag - its > not desirable at all - but if people to want to use the release plugin > then IMO it would be much better to do the svn tag manually and skip > the "release:prepare" step altogether. AIUI you can run the > release:perform and specify the tag on the command line, something > like > > mvn -Prc -Dtag=SCXML_0_8_RC2 release:perform
My mistake, I think its connectionUrl, rather than tag: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/examples/perform-release.html Niall Alternatively, from looking at the docs, theres also an option to not update the > Niall > > >> Finally, if anyone wants to discuss tagging with the release plugin >> any more (though not too much more :-), I'm happy to do that in a new >> thread. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
