On 12/19/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Simon,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:27 PM:
> ---- Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 12/19/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've looked through the list of unscheduled issues [1] and can't
>>> find anything that need to go into a 1.1.1 release.
>
> I'm not aware of any fetaures or bugfixes waiting.
>
>>
>> How are we going to create the release?
>>> 1. Ant
>>> 2. Maven 1
>>> 3. Maven 2
>>>
>>> Or some combination of them? My guess is to use Ant for the
>>> source/binaries distros and Maven 1 for the site.
>
> My preference would be to build using maven2, with -source
> and -target set to 1.2 and 1.1 respectively (using a JVM >=
> 1.4 of course, as that's what maven needs). To check 1.2
> compatibility, we could then run just the integration tests
> as a separate step using java 1.2.
>
> However this would require that:
> (a) "mvn site" works. Currently this generates odd errors I
> don't understand
You might still use M1 to generatge the site though. Just configure the release plugin of M2 to run
only "deploy" instead of "deploy, site-deploy" as long as site generation does
not work with M2.
> (b) there is an obvious way of setting -source and -target
> values, so they default to 1.2/1.1 but users can override.
> I'm sure there is, but I don't know what it is.
> (c) the itest target supports running tests using an external JVM
>
> Using a single build tool to produce a release is much easier
> than using ant to build the code and maven1 to build the
> site, then stitching the results together.
Well, since M2 is not yet up to date with M1 building the site, catch 22 ;-)
>> My understanding is that "Maven 1 for the site" is required to get
>> the current Commons L&F. I don't have an opinion on which is the
>> best to actually make the binaries of the release.
>
> As noted above, it would be great if we could get the site
> building using maven2.
Yeah. Definitely.
>> Is there anything else that needs to be done, besides the
> normal release
>>> cycle?
>>
>>
>> I think we're set.
>
> I'd like to see a reasonable time for users to assess a
> release candidate. Getting the nightlies working would be a
> good first step; currently nightlies for logging uses
> maven1.x, which means that ONLY the site is actually being
> built nightly..
A working nightly M2 build would be really great.
- Jörg
Easy enough - move logging from the nightly m1 txt file to the m2 txt file.
Multiple types of builds is a way off I suspect.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
