On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I still think Maven should be a downstream issue. > > +1 > > Maven has never been a required part of our releases, and I don't > think we should change that. > > We should also keep in mind that there's nothing really official about > a "release manager". > There's no reason the person(s) that signed the normal release need to > be the same person that signs the maven stuff (but it should be a PMC > member if it's hosted by the ASF). > > If there are people around during a release that want to handle the > maven stuff, that seems fine. It does *not* have to be the release > manager. It seems fine to make reasonable accommodations if some are > working on making maven artifacts available at roughly the same... but > if not, it should not hold up the release.
I completely disagree. It's either a first class citizen or it's not and by moving it out, you're guaranteeing it will not be consistently right. I think it would be interesting to take a poll as to who uses Maven in the user community. -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
