On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > I've changed the version number and got rid of the DISCLAIMER files. I'm >> > looking at the getting the distribution build working, checking >> > LICENSE/NOTICE and dependency versions before cutting an RC0 for us to >> look >> > at. If people want to help out with this pre-RC0 release prep then feel >> > free >> > and just go ahead. If you want to fix functional issues with the >> release, >> > e.g. a good indicator is if you are going to make the same change to >> trunk, >> > can you also raise a JIRA against 1.3 to cover the change so I can see >> > what's being fixed. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Simon >> > >> >> It looks like the binary distribution build is broken in the 1.3 branch, i >> think related to the change i did back in >> r663551****<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=663551>. >> I'm still investigating but it maybe best to go back to using the really >> old >> shade plugin for now in the branch so it doesn't hold up anything in the >> 1.3 >> release. >> >> ..ant >> > > How broken is it? It its a day to fix then I suggest we do it. If it's a > week then I agree lets use the old one. > > Simon > A lot of dependency jars aren't getting included in the binary distribution so samples will be broken. Not sure why not yet so i can't say how long it will take to fix it :) I worried that people might be trying to test things in 1.3 now so a broken binary distribution would cause some inconvenience. What about if i revert it in the branch now so as to not hinder testing and if it can be fixed then put it back in the branch then? ...ant
