This is perhaps where my point about over-use of the snapshot dependencies and 
the versioning applies. For example, does blueprint core now need parser-1.2.1 
rather than parser-1.2.0 to function correctly? 

> On 1 Jul 2014, at 15:13, Thomas Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> But that is not enough because there are other dependencies on artifacts that 
> are not publically available yet.  For example, I still get this error 
> building blueprint out of trunk:
> 
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project org.apache.aries.blueprint.core: 
> Could not resolve dependencies for project 
> org.apache.aries.blueprint:org.apache.aries.blueprint.core:bundle:1.4.2-SNAPSHOT:
>  The following artifacts could not be resolved: 
> org.apache.aries.blueprint:blueprint-parser:jar:1.2.1, 
> org.apache.aries.proxy:org.apache.aries.proxy.impl:jar:1.0.3: Could not find 
> artifact org.apache.aries.blueprint:blueprint-parser:jar:1.2.1 in EclipseLink 
> Repo (http://download.eclipse.org/rt/eclipselink/maven.repo/) -> [Help 1]
> 
> That is why I was asking if we can temporarily use a staging maven repo for 
> the artifacts that are under review to be released.  I don't think updating 
> all the references to use the next SNAPSHOT version is correct.  Right after 
> the release we would then go back to change them back to reference the real 
> release?
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> Guillaume Nodet ---07/01/2014 03:51:56 AM---Again, deployment of a snapshot 
> is not the issue here. The problem is that artifacts being released
> 
> From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> To:   [email protected]
> Date: 07/01/2014 03:51 AM
> Subject:      Re: Top down build of trunk failing during release process 
> (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Parent 2.0.0)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, deployment of a snapshot is not the issue here.
> The problem is that artifacts being released use the parent 2.0.0 which is
> not publicly available yet.
> Anyway, I've moved those bundles to use parent 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT so everything
> should be sorted.
> 
> 
> 2014-07-01 10:45 GMT+02:00 Holly Cummins <[email protected]>:
> 
> > Our release instructions also include the deployment step:
> > http://aries.apache.org/development/releasingaries.html
> >
> > In the discussion of the release strategy (incremental vs trunk-breaking)
> > they don't include the detail about preferring to depend on releases, which
> > might be worth adding.
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:36 AM, David Bosschaert <
> > [email protected]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Yep - the Felix release process outlines this deployment of a snapshot
> > > just before doing the actual release. I think it would make sense for
> > > Aries to follow that too:
> > >
> > >
> > http://felix.apache.org/documentation/development/release-management-nexus.html
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On 30 June 2014 22:27, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The normal process would be to immediately upon building the “release”,
> > > do a deploy of the new snapshot version and update everything that
> > > references the old snapshot to the new snapshot.  Thus, things would
> > > continue to build.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 30, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> After the release candidate artifacts are posted, module poms have
> > their
> > > >> version bumped up. So parent is now 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT. Modules that are
> > > being
> > > >> released at the same time were depending on 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT and moved
> > to
> > > >> depend on 2.0.0 as part of their own release process. Which is fine
> > for
> > > >> reviewing the release artifacts of all those modules together.
> > However,
> > > the
> > > >> part of the release process that bumps a module's version in trunk
> > > >> subsequent to the tagging, doesn't bump the dependency versions. They
> > > >> shouldn't: a) there's no reason to depend on snapshot b) it doesn't
> > know
> > > >> the module it depends on is being released at the same time and
> > > therefore
> > > >> isn't available in a repository.
> > > >>
> > > >> Our process for releasing modules together that have dependencies
> > > between
> > > >> them, is causing the trunk build to be broken while the release vote
> > is
> > > >> ongoing. I'm not sure what other multi-module projects do and why
> > we're
> > > >> different, but surely they don't all suffer from this.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any ideas?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 30 June 2014 19:53, Thomas Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I'm new here and this may be obvious to others.  While we are in
> > > release
> > > >>> mode, is it expected that trunk will no longer build due to
> > references
> > > to
> > > >>> the unreleased 2.0.0 parent pom?  Is there a good process to follow
> > in
> > > >>> order to be able to build everything locally while doing other work
> > > that is
> > > >>> not in the middle of being released?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Tom
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [image: Inactive hide details for Guillaume Nodet ---06/30/2014
> > > 01:10:56
> > > >>> PM---This is the first release of a set. It contains the
> > > paren]Guillaume
> > > >>> Nodet ---06/30/2014 01:10:56 PM---This is the first release of a set.
> > > It
> > > >>> contains the parent pom in version 2.0.0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > > >>> To: [email protected]
> > > >>> Date: 06/30/2014 01:10 PM
> > > >>> Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Parent 2.0.0
> > > >>> ------------------------------
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is the first release of a set.
> > > >>> It contains the parent pom in version 2.0.0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Staging repository available at
> > > >>>
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-1002
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [ ] +1 Release parent 2.0.0
> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Guillaume Nodet
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Kulp
> > > > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Reply via email to