Thanks Dennis. I'm going to have a go at it, starting from your script, and if I hit a wall I'll give you a shout.
Cheers, Greg. On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:31, Dennis Reedy wrote: > On May 6, 2013, at 314PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: > > > > > 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. > > They could, but since these are being treated as 3rd party jars (i.e not > created as artifacts from a Maven project) it really doesnt make sense IMO. > > > > >> 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? > > If we ever switch to a Maven project, it is an easy thing to add. IMO I dont > think we need this right now. > > > > > 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?). > > I already asked them, we're good to go. > > > 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? > > I think we should stick with 2.2.1, but yes we should approve them. > > Note, we will most likely need to change the deploy script to use the GPG > plugin instead of the deploy plugin. Let me know if you need a hand > > Regards > > Dennis
