On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote: > 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.
Where exactly? Do we have release tags that do not correspond exactly with the release sources now? If so, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. > > I don't see what the harm is in adding the header line. If it refers to a revision of a deleted tag, I don't see the point in it. Phil > >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
