Hi all: I'm going through the "project poms" that Dennis contributed in preparation for spinning the 2.2.1 release to the Apache Maven repository (and hence to Central), and I have a few questions...
Should the poms call out a parent pom that specifies the version and all the licensing? Right now they're independent. There's actually an official Apache parent pom available, but since we don't build using Maven, I don't think we need to call out the Apache parent. >From what I read on the rules for submission to Maven Central, we need to provide javadoc- and source- jars for all the artifacts. In the case of River this works out a little funny because we generate many jars (services and downloads) from the same codebase. It appears that we'd be fine with providing "fake" javadoc and source jars that contain a README file that points to the real sources and javadocs. Any feelings about whether we need to do this, or should we? The group-id is currently "net.jini" in the poms. I don't know if INFRA will give us grief over not using an "org.apache" group id (maybe someone already asked them?). Should these be "org.apache.river"? Lastly, I'm fairly convinced that since the Maven artifacts will be separate, signed release artifacts, that we will need to call a release vote on those artifacts after staging them to Apache's Nexus repository. That doesn't mean they are "2.2.2", but we need to approve the artifacts. Does anyone feel otherwise? Cheers, Greg.
