I'm not a big fan of having archives where the zip or tar name
doesn't match the inside of the archive or the version number (i.e.
foo-1.0-123456.zip --> foo-1.0/). All our proposed binaries would
extract to the exact same directory. If someone forgets to delete
the old foo-1.0 directory before unpacking the newest proposed
binary, who knows what kind of strange errors they will report.
It might be a good idea, I'm just a little too burnt out to be
excited about adding another step to our release process (i.e.
renaming the files produced by maven then renaming them back when we
make them official).
-David
On Dec 15, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Good idea Paul...I like the date time string idea.
Paul McMahan wrote:
On 12/15/05, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Second, someone pointed out (I think it was Jacek) that we did
not include
a
notation in the binary about what the release candidate was so
that it is
not
confused with the final release. Before releasing another cut I
would
like the
naming convention of the binary and the directories to be clearer
as to
what
they contain otherwise this will get confusing. My suggestion is
that the
name be:
geronimo-jetty-1.0-rc[n].tar.gz for example. Where [n] is the
number of
the
release candidate (and we are now on number 2). The next set of
images
should
follow this convention to ensure we are not confusing the users.
I know
these
are release candidates and this isn't required but it would make
me sleep
better
at night :) The directory that is actually contained in the zip
will
still be
geronimo-1.0. Thoughts?
Matt, including a notation in the filename seems like a good idea
and could
help prevent confusion. I've also seen projects use a date string
instead
of a release candidate number for this purpose. Using a date
string is
helpful since it makes it obvious when the image was created plus
avoids
publicizing how many unsuccessful attempts there have been (not
saying that
would be an issue in this case :o)
Best wishes,
Paul
