Thanks Wendy! I'm sorry I got confused with the versioning, I actually had that dilemma of whether to discard 1.2.2 and move on to 1.2.3 but I didn't see anything in the old threads. I should have just asked on the list :)
-Deng On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Wendy Smoak <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
