IMO It's a fundamental Maven thing, nothing to do with what other projects have decided... once a release exists, it is never changed. The release process is on a wiki, so this was just a heads up that I made a change. I'm not usually the one doing the work around here, so feel free to change it back (but I'll probably forget and complain every time it happens.) -Wendy
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Brett Porter<[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/08/2009, at 2:18 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Deng Ching<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The staging repository where the binaries, including the sources, >>> signatures >>> and checksums, is here: >>> >>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/staged-archiva/ >> >> I'm having that uncomfortable "Do I have the *right* 1.2.2?" feeling. >> It looks like 1.2.2 was made available for download on Aug 24th and >> replaced on Aug 27th. That means we potentially have two different >> 1.2.2's floating around out there. >> >> I added a line to the release process wiki advising against re-using >> version numbers after a version has been made available for public >> download. IMO we should have just moved on to 1.2.3 after a blocking >> issue was found in 1.2.2. Version numbers are free. :) > > While that process was adopted in Continuum, it has never been adopted here. > Are you suggesting we change the release process in a similar way? > > You can check if you got the right one by checking the checksums or > signatures against the current distribution site. Perhaps we can bake the > SVN revision and time/date in as well... > > - Brett > >
