Jochen, the release plugin is configured to activate this new profile
automatically during perform, so that should answer both of your
questions:: 1) it doesn't need an activation of it's own and 2) the name
is irrelevant so it doesn't matter what we name it because noone has to
activate it explicitely....therefore if people have their own existing
release profiles, it's probably better that we don't stomp on them.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote:
projects to produce proper releases. I think to do it and avoid conflicts
with any existing profiles, I would change the profile name from "release"
to "apache-release" and activate that by default. Does anyone see any
downsides to this?"
I would, if it where: The apache-release profile doesn't contain an
activation section. My understanding is that means it is *not* turned
on by default, is it? (And rightly so, because I wouldn't want to run
javadoc with any build.)
I am also not so sure about the change of profile name. The argument
to avoid conflicts doesn't apply, IMO: Nobody needs to choose the new
parents. I also do think that we should demonstrate best practices,
which includes uniformity: Choose common profile names and depart from
them only if necessary, not vice versa.
I am -0 (non-binding) on these changes.
Jochen
