On 29 March 2011 16:02, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
We need to keep Nexus, but I agree about the release plugin - see below. >> 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. Yes, that is true. Also, had the [net] release been using Nexus, it would have required 2 additional manual stages to close and then release the Maven artifacts. It is impossible to accidentally release Maven artifacts using Maven command-line when using a staging manager such as Nexus. But I agree that using manual processes up to that point is better than trying to use the Maven release plugin. > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
