On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:37 PM Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am 2016-05-10 um 20:04 schrieb Christopher:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:58 AM Michael Osipov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> Gesendet: Montag, 09. Mai 2016 um 23:04 Uhr
> >>> Von: "Hervé BOUTEMY" <[email protected]>
> >>> An: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]>
> >>> Betreff: [VOTE] ASF Parent POM Version 18
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We solved 12 issues:
> >>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311250&version=12332150&styleName=Text
> >>>
> >>> Staging repo:
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheapache-1007/
> >>>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheapache-1007/org/apache/apache/18/apache-18-source-release.zip
> >>>
> >>> Changes since the last release:
> >>>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/pom/tags/apache-18/pom.xml?r1=HEAD&r2=1675930&diff_format=h
> >>>
> >>> Source release checksum(s):
> >>> apache-18-source-release.zip sha1:
> >> e0a0b64bd092feb7b0f0eac9049ca6896951be9a
> >>>
> >>> Staging site:
> >>> http://maven.apache.org/pom-archives/asf-LATEST/
> >>>
> >>> Guide to testing staged releases:
> >>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> >>>
> >>> Vote open for 72 hours.
> >>
> >>
> >> -1, along with MPOM-106, MASSEMBLY should have been upgraded to 2.6. It
> is
> >> still at 2.5.5.
> >>
> >>
> > -0 (non-binding). I was also expecting 2.6 assembly
> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-108)
>
> I relied on MPOM-106 to do the right thing...
>
> > Also, the scm section seems wrong for a release: all the URLs point to
> the
> > tag, but the actual <tag> element is entirely missing.
>
> This one is redudant with Subversion. See
> https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#SCM
>
>
>
Okay, it's been awhile since I used maven-release-plugin with an svn, and I
couldn't remember how that section worked, and it just looked funny to me.
After looking back at an older Accumulo release from before we switched to
git, I can see it did the same thing. I should have checked before I said
anything. :)

Reply via email to