Nicolas, Jean-Louis, what are your thoughts ? The problem reported by Stefan with the ivy.xml in the source archive must be caused by something in the build process replacing the ivy.xml of the source tree with an expanded version of the same file generated when the <ivy:publish/> task runs ?
I guess a minor edit in the build file to make this modified version of ivy.xml go somewhere under the build folder should address this issue for this release and the next ones. I have not spent myself a lot of time on ivy yet but I would like to spend some in 2015 - or maybe even next week if my kids are busy out of the house … I also know how it feels when one creates a release candidate and some minor problems are found and one has to again go through 20 steps in a ReleaseInstructions document … But I am sure we will get there finally. Best regards, Antoine On Dec 14, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
