On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moving to a separate thread ... > > On 5/17/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Niall Pemberton >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Thanks for your time Phil, comments below ... >> >> >> >> On 5/16/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip/> >> >>> I guess its the release plugin that does this: >> >>> >> <connection>scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/scxml/tags/SCXML_0_8_RC2</connection> >> >>> ? >> >>> >> >> <snap/> >> >> >> >> Yes, but under my tutelage, so I'll take all the blame on this one :-) >> >> >> >> I did spend some time thinking about this beforehand. Of these two >> approaches: >> >> >> >> 1. Tag each RC as if it were the final / release tag. Delete tag if >> >> RC++, and redo. >> >> 2. Tag RCs as RCs. Copy tag for passing RC as release tag. >> >> >> >> ... I personally prefer the latter, since: >> >> >> >> * I don't like the idea of a release tag existing before a release >> >> passes muster >> >> * I think its good housekeeping to retain RC tags >> >> >> >> >> >>> The site builds fine from the source distro, but will point to the RC2 >> >>> tag in project info. I guess this is OK, since the tag is going to be >> >>> copied on release. >> >>> >> >> <snip/> >> >> >> >> Yes, it'll be copied to SCXML_0_8 if vote passes. The way the Commons >> >> SCXML site on c.a.o is deployed, its always the latest / snapshot >> >> (there are separate pointers in site navbar for release documentation, >> >> such as Javadocs), so the c.a.o site will have the correct bits in >> >> project info. Folks building from 0.8 source will indeed get the RC2 >> >> tag (the tag will not be removed). >> > >> > IMO this is another reason to not use the release plugin - along with >> > the facts that 1) if you don't remember to do a "dryRun" it may remove >> > the license header and 2) it generates an awful lot of commit noise to >> > just change the version number. The only downside to manually >> > releasing IMo is that you have to hand-edit the maven-metadata.xml. >> > >> > While its not a show-stopper that the pom points to the RC2 tag - its >> > not desirable at all - but if people to want to use the release plugin >> > then IMO it would be much better to do the svn tag manually and skip >> > the "release:prepare" step altogether. AIUI you can run the >> > release:perform and specify the tag on the command line, something >> > like >> > >> > mvn -Prc -Dtag=SCXML_0_8_RC2 release:perform >> >> My mistake, I think its connectionUrl, rather than tag: >> >> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/examples/perform-release.html >> > <snap/> > > Cool (if it works, that is).
I've used it once a while ago - the first time I did an m2 release (commons-skin) when it failed part way through the process I used the -DconnectionUrl to complete the process http://markmail.org/message/gydf32x6myvqtidj Niall > The release:prepare goal yields much pain for negligible gain. There > are benefits to using the release:perform goal (it'll stage the RC > artifacts, write repo metadata, stage site without further > intervention). So the suggested approach to manually tag and then use > release:perform seems worth trying (TBD whether the SCM URLs need to > actually be modified at all when tagging manually). > > If no one else tries this, I'll make such an attempt when I RM next > (maybe JEXL needs a 1.2 soon after all ;-) > > -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
