I agree that promoting the actual built artifacts is the best way, but what about projects that have filtered the build number into the artifact somehow? (we use a property file that is filtered)
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Dillon Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:13 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Maven and the Apache processes... Ya... the build would need to use the release numbers for all those bits, and only use the rc bits for the artifacts. Else, you'd have to rebuild... but by rebuilding you basically invalidate any assurance that the new build will be the same as the rc build which presumably was voted upon. So the only real option is to make a release build with the real release numbers internally, but publish the jars with their rc versions. And once approved copy the rc artifacts to the release artifacts. --jason On Oct 15, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: > On 10/15/06, Tom Huybrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> just one comment: wouldn't it be better if release:accept would copy >> the 2.0.5-rcX artifacts to 2.0.5 (like in Joakim's proposal) instead >> of doing the build again ? > > > Wouldn't all the internal version numbers in things like > META-INF/MANIFEST.MF be messed up if Maven just copied and renamed the > files? > > Tom > > > Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
