On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really tell. >> >> There is no perfect build process. I'm not a fan of voting on an RC and then >> renaming the tag and so with VFS I created the tag over and over again for >> each candidate. That has its own pitfalls but works since Nexus supports it >> well. If we were following the Tomcat and Httpd model I think the first >> release of VFS 2.0 would have been 2.0.20. I would think that would make it >> hard for users to understand what the latest version is, but if it works for >> them I'd be interested to know more. Maybe their releases never fail. > > I agree with you on this, Ralph. I am not sure it is best for us to > go down the tc/httpd path as it may be confusing to users. What we
IMO it's only confusing if there really are a lot of "missing" releases. I think Tomcat may do additional checks on the code before putting the tag up for formal release vote. This can be done on snapshots or even RCs. > are talking about here is what to put in the manifest of release > jars. If we want to put revision numbers in there (I am personally > not sold on this), the meaningfulness of what we put in will have > impact on the build process. I think it is best to avoid this can > of worms and just either leave the attribute off of release jars (as > it is only really needed for snaps) or put the final release tag > name there. I don't buy the argument that because the release tag > is a copied or moved version of the source used to build the release > jar it is not sufficient to identify the source. I think it should > *definitively* identify the source. It should, but it doesn't necessarily. I don't see what the harm is in adding the header line. > Phil >> >> Ralph >> >> On Sep 10, 2011, at 9:04 AM, sebb wrote: >> >>> On 10 September 2011 16:28, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/10/11 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: >>>>> On 10 September 2011 16:09, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal here, but IIUC there is >>>>>> another problem when it comes to release jars. Current practice is to >>>>>> create the jars from what ends up being the final RC tag. This tag is >>>>>> then either copied or moved to the release tag, which becomes the >>>>>> definitive source. So at the time the jar is created, the tag/revision >>>>>> pair that the build number should point to does not exist. The only >>>>>> choice would seem then to be to reference the RC tag which may end up >>>>>> deleted. So again, it would seem better to me to either omit the >>>>>> attribute from release jars or just use the (anticipated) final release >>>>>> tag name. >>>>> Tag rename/copy history unfortunately shows the repo revision at the >>>>> time of the copy which makes it quite hard to know what revision was >>>>> actually used for the build. You have to scan the history to check for >>>>> changes. >>>>> >>>>> The point is just to record what was used to create the jars. >>>>> Yes, this will differ from the final tag, but having the information >>>>> is better than not having it, IMO. >>>> Not sure I agree. Seems to me the whole point of having a release >>>> tag - the final one that should really be immutable, is that it >>>> points unambiguously to the source used to build the distribution. >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> Why do we need to complicate things by referencing revision numbers >>>> of (possibly deleted) RC tags? >>> Because the official release tag was not used to build the project. >>> >>> The only way to know what was actually used is to record the tag and >>> revision number. >>> >>> We don't have to store it in the jar manifests, but that seems as good >>> a place as any. >>> >>>>> Note: >>>>> One solution to all this uncertainty is to abandon RCs, and just use >>>>> revision numbers. >>>>> If the vote fails, bump the revision number and throw away the old >>>>> revision and tag. This is what Tomcat and Httpd do. >>>> Can you explain exactly how that works? >>> This is the process AIUI: >>> >>> Tag 7.0.22 from trunk; build, vote. >>> >>> Vote succeeds - release 7.0.22. >>> >>> Vote fails, create tag 7.0.23 from updated trunk, build and redo vote >>> Tag 7.0.22 could now be deleted, but I think they keep all the tags. >>> >>> Their achives [1] for 7.0.x don't contain 13, 17, 18; but the tags [2] do. >>> >>> [1] http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-7/ >>> [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc7.0.x/tags/ >>>> Phil >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
