On 2014-12-13, Nicolas Lalevée wrote: > I have built a second release candidate for Ivy 2.4.0
> The svn tag of this release is: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ant-ivy.git;a=commit;h=0b9db35ee7a94a719e538b04122b86cb997f3a17 We should be using signed tags (git tag -s or -u) rather than lightweight tags for releases. I know we haven't cut any releases from git so far, so we'll be learning as we go along. > The artifacts has been published to: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ant/ivy/2.4.0@7405 Signatures and licenses look good, RAT is as happy as always (i.e. a few test files lack licenses). As usual the doc folders are different between the source archive and the git repo and I still can't say I like it. It is kind of difficult to tell whether they contain the same information. And there is one thing that really bothers me and makes me vote -1 unless anybody can explian it to me: ivy.xml on the tag is different from the one in the source archive. There are a few whitespace differences and the one inside the source archive has an XML declaration (which is good and should also be in the repo, IMHO). More important to me is the difference of the info tag, though. <info organisation="org.apache.ivy" module="ivy" revision="2.4.0" status="release" publication="20141213170938"> in the archive vs <info organisation="org.apache.ivy" module="ivy" status="integration"> on the tag. As you can see the status, revision and publication attributes are different. As it stands, this is a -1, which is not a veto (releases cannot be vetoed), it just means you still need three +1s. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
