The problem is that comments at the top of the pom are lost when releasing. The workaround is to move the comments (ASF header) down into the <project> tag. I have just done that for xbean, and it works nicely: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup and the tagged one http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-2.8/pom.xml?view=markup
Anyway, a dryRun is always recommended i think. On 12/22/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IIRC, the maven release plugin did some odd things to the POM; I recall seeing this in SMX. I recommend that we do a dry run on a trash release and look at the results to see if we are happy with the outcome. Regards, Alan On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good, > because people can build them locally, check that everything > is ok (for legal reasons), and vote. This is much more difficult > for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be applied. > > This works well, I think, if the release process is just > mvn release:prepare release:perform > which should be the case for all projects ideally. > The benefit is that the jars will be deployed to their final > destination > as part of the relase, without having to tweak / corrupting maven > repository metadata by copying from a staging repo. > > On 12/21/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> Thanks...this was the missing context for me. I spect I'm not the >> only one who doesn't hang on the incubator thread so this helps. >> >> I'm confused about Roy's comments as there are specific requirements >> for including legal stuff in the binaries. Sounds like he is >> advocating everyone building their own copy and validating it. >> >> Since this is a change in process it would be good to outline how you >> propose it working for the benefit of the many on the list that don't >> have the benefit of your thinking apart from the reference above. >> >> I would very much like to see us change the process and the specs are >> probably a really good place to start. I'm +1 for changing the >> process. I would very much like to get the new process documented so >> that you don't end up becoming the release dog and have everyone >> making up a new way each time which is currently where we are at. >> >> Other people's thoughts? >> >> Matt Hogstrom >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
