On Mar 23, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Hi David,
On 3/22/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> I would add that we could follow more or less the process described
> in http://cocoon.apache.org/devinfo/releasing.html
>
> This seems to be pretty reasonable. Tagging the trunk is not really
> complicated.
>
> wdyt ?
I think that's pretty much completely unreasonable for a project
built with maven.
IIUC the process incubator projects seem to be gravitating towards
goes something like this:
1. everyone agrees informally that it's time for a release and
someone is selected as release manager.
2. jiras, code, docs etc are cleaned up
3. mvn release is used to tag svn and push proposed artifacts to a
staging location, normally the release managers' space on
people.apache.org
4. Everyone goes over the proposed artifacts with a fine toothed comb
checking the legal requirements and whether they actually work (in
order of importance :-)
5. The vote occurs on the proposed binary artifacts + the svn tag.
- if the vote passes, the tag remains and the artifacts are moved to
the apache maven repo (using the appropriate maven goal which I don't
know)
- if the vote fails (usually because a jar is missing LICENSE and/or
NOTICE files) the tag is removed, the build number is incremented,
and everyone goes back to step 2.
What is the build number that you are referring to? You mean the
version used for the maven artifacts?
I might not have that part quite right. I think the jars can be
arranged to have a build number at the end of the version
1.5.0-3
where "3" is the build number. This might only happen with snapshot
jars.
Anyway I think investigating what maven will do automatically for us
would be wise. I think it can now automatically put the legal files
in when building, and I think this staged release process works.
I actually like this process.
Yes I like this process too.
BTW the recent bouncycastle issue makes me think even more that it's
important to vote on the actual artifacts to be released rather than
on a feeling that its about time to push something out the door :-)
On a hopefully not too related issue it seems to me unlikely that
apachds doesn't deserve a spot on http://www.apache.org/licenses/
exports. Has anyone investigated this stuff?
thanks
david jencks
Alex
