On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 03:20 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Thomas Neidhart > > <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> On 11/05/2013 01:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >>> A change to the component id to pool2 required a new RC. The only other > >>> change was some improvements to the Ant build. > >>> > >>> > >>> The Pool 2.0 RC4 is available for review here: > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/ (r3419) > >>> > >>> Maven artifacts are here: > >>> > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-073/ > >>> > >>> Details of changes since 1.6 are in the release notes and changelog: > >>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/pool/RELEASE-NOTES.txt > >>> > >>> > >> > http://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/commons-pool-2.0-RC4/changes-report.html > >>> > >>> The tag is here: > >>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/tags/POOL_2_0_RC4/ > >>> (r 1538827) > >>> > >>> Site: > >>> http://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/commons-pool-2.0-RC4 > >>> (Broken links to Javadoc versions expected) > >>> > >>> KEYS: > >>> http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS > >>> > >>> Please review the release candidate and vote. > >>> This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now > >>> > >> [x] +1 Release these artifacts > >> > >> Regarding the rat plugin and the related warnings: > >> > >> add this to the pom before making the site and deploying it (reporting > >> section): > >> > >> <plugin> > >> <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId> > >> <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId> > >> <configuration> > >> <excludes> > >> <exclude>site-content/**/*</exclude> > >> </excludes> > >> </configuration> > >> </plugin> > >> > > > > > > This magic and more RAT magic is provided in commons-parent 32, which RC4 > > does NOT use. The CP change is in SVN, why not cut another release? That > > should do it, finally, and cleanly :) > > afaik it is not mandatory to only publish the latest release tag as > site. He could just do that: > > * publish site based on RC4 tag > * re-publish site based on latest trunk (with corrections) > > Most of our components are published from trunk, which is also perfectly > fine as long as the component has links to the latest released javadocs > and changelogs imho. > OK, but the site would have to be further modified to include a "Javadoc (trunk)" in addition to the Javadoc to released versions. I've always found it confusing to go to a site and see that it is for a -SNAPSHOT version, because I have no way to tell how the information relates to any released version. I'll start another thread... +0 Gary > Thomas > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
