Hi I think the bintray resolver is part of the future release. Antoine Levy-Lambert
----- Reply message ----- From: "JBaruch" <jbar...@jfrog.com> To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org> Subject: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2 Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 3:47 PM Sorry to nag here, but any chance you can sneak the bintray resolver in? Now, when it has documentation and everything? Pretty please? Baruch. -- JFrog Developer Advocate www.jfrog.com +972544954353 @jbaruch <https://twitter.com/jbaruch/> http://linkd.in/jbaruch On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org > wrote: > > > > Le 17 déc. 2014 à 04:09, Antoine Levy Lambert <anto...@gmx.de> a écrit : > > > > 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 ? > > The purpose of this change is that it fixes the dependencies of Ivy. I see > no particular harm here. > > But as Stefan, generally speaking, I prefer the source release to be an > extract of the source repository. So there is no possible confusion. > > > 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 … > > Actually releasing Ivy is quite straight forward, no issues with that. > See: http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html < > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html> > Probably the signing of the artifacts can be more automatic. I have seen > there is ant target for that but I haven’t tested it yet. > > What trouble me more is what is the exact process to push artifacts into > Maven repo after the release. And we’ll need to figure out how to push it > into the Eclipse updatesite too. > > > But I am sure we will get there finally. > > I am sure too. We have to either be patient or actively act on it, > depending on our available time. > > > On Dec 14, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > I do not know how it works, but I’ll figure it out. And update the release > documentation. > > Nicolas > >
