On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > After another nightmare by an RM who has not cut a release in a > while, I think we need to do something. The documentation on the > Commons web pages describes a process that works. I suggest that we > standardize on that process, adding some simple automation scripts > that RMs can choose to use or not to use for the manual steps and > stop fussing with Nexus or the maven release plugin. I cut an RC > last night in 25 minutes (about 15 of which were spent waiting for > the [pool] tests to complete) and will likely spend about that same > amount of time deploying the artifacts to dist/ and what remains of > our simple, file-and-directory-based replication infrastructure to > get maven artifacts pushed to the maven repos. I do use a simple > shell script to manage invoking the maven commands and copying files > around to reduce the required time from, say an hour, to 25 > minutes. The script is in svn. > > I prefer the "manual" approach for the following reasons: > > 1. I know what it does. Exactly, every time. I know that exactly > the binaries that we vote on get deployed to dist/ and exactly the > committed tag is used to build everything. The process includes > local generation of artifacts that I can inspect and test locally > and verify sigs. I know at each step exactly what is being pushed > where. > > 2. I know that it works. Every time. No pom-tweaking, > plugin-munging or other half-success management required. > > 3. It has no commercial / proprietary dependencies. The scripts > are optional and are in any case, ASF-licensed, committed to svn. > > I know others have different opinions on this. It could be we need > to support both ways of cutting releases.
AIUI then the deployment to the maven repository is either by dropping the artifacts manually in http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/ OR by using Nexus. I think once a component switches to Nexus, then the manual process doesn't work. Niall > I would ask, however, > that those arguing for the "automagical" approach take a hard look > at how many volunteer hours are being spent trying to get > maven/nexus to be a release manager and how comparatively little > time those of us who take the "manual" approach spend getting our > releases built and deployed. While I certainly can't claim to > produce perfect artifacts (much less code :), I will also point out > that the only major release quality problem that we have had > recently was the inadvertent release of a [net] version while > fiddling with the release plugin. I don't at all buy the argument > that the manual approach is "error-prone" as it allows more and > better opportunities for inspection by the RM and community at each > stage. > Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
