Will do. I didn't make ay changes to the binary assembly, other than its name, so it's not a surprise that there are changes needed there.
A. On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > hehe (have a look at helix release procedure: section 5 of > http://helix.incubator.apache.org/releasing.html ) > > I have some issues with jclouds-cli-assembly-1.6.1-incubating.zip/tar.gz > > It doesn't include: > * DISCLAIMER > * NOTICE (especially this one must contains "I. Included Software > section" as it contains a lot of jars) (as a sample see this file in > the Apache Karaf distrib). And BTW the other sections (II. Used > Software and III. License Summary) I'm pretty maven can do that for > you ;-) . All included jars have compliant license (mostly Apache > except bouncycastle but MIT so ok) > * LICENSE > > 2013/6/4 Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>: >> 'cos I didn't know that was an option? =) >> >> people.a.o is back, fwiw. >> >> A. >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I will but when people.a.o will be back. >>> Why not using svnpubsub for vote ? >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>: >>>> And FYI, I'd be very, very appreciative of any mentors who can review RC2 >>>> and vote. >>>> >>>> And I'm +1 binding, PPMC. >>>> >>>> A. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My tendency in this direction was prompted by David and others pointing >>>>> out that the release commit for RC0 wasn't actually pushed to the 1.6.x >>>>> branch. That does seem like poor form, even though the tag was pushed. >>> I'm >>>>> definitely open to advice and suggestions on this - I've got experience >>>>> with the release plugin, and I've got experience with iterating RCs for >>> ASF >>>>> votes, but I don't have experience meshing the two. =) >>>>> >>>>> A. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Andrew Phillips <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Re the difference with the rc0 commit and now - experience. The >>> revert >>>>> commits are so I could run the release plugin again for the next RC, >>> and I >>>>> didn't do the reverts until I cut the RC. I'm still figuring out the >>> best >>>>> way to do RCs Apache-style combined with the Maven release plugin... >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool, thanks for the explanation. I'm assuming from that that you feel >>>>> the "prepare-then-revert" style is preferred (vs. the >>>>> "prepare-locally-and-dont-commit"). >>>>>> >>>>>> Fine with me, although I'd be interested to know what the thoughts are >>>>> around having multiple commits between the "prepare" and the "revert", >>> all >>>>> of which have a "release" version in their POMs. >>>>>> >>>>>> @mentors: any guidance you can contribute here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> ap >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier Lamy >>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au >>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >>> > > > > -- > Olivier Lamy > Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
