why don't we do that (right) after 4.0 is released. the build process will be fresh in people's minds and we can set it up and include it in the cTAKES release manager documentation so it is completely ready for 4.1.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Finan, Sean < sean.fi...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote: > For what it is worth, I don't think that reversion is the best course of > action. As the apache doc that you linked states specifically "for > release", not "for every package build" ... The correct way to handle this > is by adding a releaseProfile. > > http://maven.apache.org/maven-release/maven-release-plugin/ > perform-mojo.html > > http://maven.apache.org/maven-release/maven-release-plugin/ > examples/perform-release.html > > We may want to move forward, not back. Thoughts? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Murali Minnah [mailto:mmin...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:28 AM > To: dev@ctakes.apache.org > Subject: Revert change to r.1768564 > > Hello fellow cTAKERs > > Can someone please help revert this change? > > r.1768564 > ctakes-distribution/pom.xml > "Separated build into 2 profiles: packageBinary and packageSource > packageBinary is enabled by default, packageSource is not" > > > This changed prevents source code from being distributed using the default > apache release profile when running mvn release:prepare/perform. In fact, > it should be the opposite. At ASF, binaries are only distributed as a > convenience; source code should always be distributed and binaries should > be able to be built from source. [1] > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. > apache.org_legal_release-2Dpolicy.html-23source-2Dpackages&d=DwIBaQ&c= > qS4goWBT7poplM69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMSdioCoppxeFU&r= > fs67GvlGZstTpyIisCYNYmQCP6r0bcpKGd4f7d4gTao&m= > TcreDrqDHWUkbuW2epBdEaFrwZNKbGPossM9FjA9jKM&s=rpoKRwFC5zDIVDBIV4u8VP_ > xJreK4AveCzl8eM0MlxI&e= > > Thanks, > Murali >
