On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:37 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
There were several files missing source license headers. I've
fixed in branches/2.1
2.1??
Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type.
. They would both merit a -1 from me.
Where is the code in svn?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2
Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would
follow our previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason
for using a different format?
release plugin defaults
OK. Then in absence of any other reasons, I think we should be
consistent with the naming of our previous releases.
If you mean the previous main geronimo releases, I strongly disagree.
We have no reason I can see to avoid following maven defaults here.
With the exception of the main geronimo release, previously done
through an arcane and IMO incomprehensible process, everything we've
released in the last year or so has used the release plugin default
tag locations of <artifactid>-<version>.
thanks
david jencks
--kevan
