On 9 September 2011 19:58, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> Good morning guys, >> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom, >> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new >> `Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, where reported the >> revision number and the timestamp. >> I applied locally on [chain] and got: >> >> Implementation-Build: r1166864; 2011-09-09 09:17:22+0200 > > Is there any way to either suppress the entry or get a tag name put > in place of the revision number when we cut releases? I guess what > you end up with is the revision number of the winning RC tag in > release jars. Are we sure we want to do that?
Yes, I think the revision number is very useful. More so than the tag name, because revision numbers are immutable. The revision number documents what was actually used to build the code (assuming a clean workspace). The buildScmBranch property can be used to document the branch/tag name (trunk => trunk, which is not all that useful!) > Phil >> >> I'd like to commit it if no one has objections, if needed I can fill >> an Issue and attach the patch. >> Please let me know, thanks in advance! >> Have a nice day, >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
