2013/6/28 Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> > Someone else already covered that. The tag can live forever as it always > was in the POM. In the SVN version you can either lie before or after, in > the Git version you can use final or RC and they'll end up pointing at the > same commit. Having said that, I never understood why that was done anyway. > My poms don't even have the tag XML tag in them and the release plugin > rudely inserts it and then removes it again (and butchers the formatting in > the process...). It'd be nice to turn that off, though that's another > discussion for another day. > > This "SCM is convenience" comment keeps popping up. I strongly disagree. > > You have two requirements: > > 1) Keep ASF legal people happy >
*Legal*, that's only basis and the thing Stephen reminds. Sure, no developers would work without a scm today, but Apache Foundation does not require the scm revision, or even a scm be used. > 2) Produce quality software artifacts > > SCM is absolutely essential for the second goal. > +1, sure. > > Are you saying that Uwe and the Lucene project are violating ASF protocol > I don't think they are. As I don't think the Maven is violating any ASF rule either. > by voting on the SCM revision and only then building/tagging/etc? SCM (even > SVN) gives you a fundamentally solid and reliable way to KNOW what's there. > Voting on a hash or rev number and then building from it afterward seems > like a good move and would save a lot of drama. In terms of providing > temporary artifacts to judge that SCM hash/rev by, that's what SNAPSHOT > builds are for... > I don't think there has to be that drama. I suppose the scm revision/git hash could be included in the vote mails. And carry on. -- Baptiste
