On 8/18/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/18/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WARNING: If you have previously installed 1.0.3 artifacts from the earlier > test build evaluation into your local repository, you will need to manually > replace them, because these are not SNAPSHOT version numbers. A non-SNAPSHOT version should be built exactly once if at all possible. Once it's in a repository, for all intents and purposes it *is* released and should not be changed. [1] Next time around let's just evaluate the -SNAPSHOT version until it's ready to tag and release.
Isn't that why we have a test repository for snapshots? Otherwise, you'd only get one shot at publishing any particular version number, and we'd end up with lots of holes in the sequence of version numbers ever actually published. The problem with evaluating the snapshots is we're trusting that nothing goes wrong with the real build process after version numbers are updated in the POMs. I would prefer to see our release votes be about "these are the exact bits that I want to push to the dist directory, and to ibiblio". We definitely don't want to be pushing test artifacts with non-SNAPSHOT versions as a normal course of action, but in the roll-up to a release it seems like the only way to do it.
(2) Releaseable .tar.gz and .zip artifacts Do we need both? I think .zip is sufficient.
Works for me. I like tar.gz better when I've got executables included, or when I want to maintain file permissions ... but neither of those tend to be an issue for our distros.
KNOWN ISSUE: The version number (1.0.3) is not included in the top level > directory of the "war" distributions. Need to figure out how to not do > this, without disabling the generation of webapps that don't require version > numbers in the context path. I'll look at it tomorrow afternoon, but I suspect renaming the files will be the easiest solution for 1.0.3.
I can live with that for this version.
KNOWN ISSUE: The "-dist" suffix on all of the above distibutions is > somewhat useless. We can rename the files, but it would be better to > identify a way to make the assembly instructions do what we want in the > first place. The latest version of the assembly plugin has an option for this. It would require changing the assembly descriptors to the new format, and I haven't been able to get it to do what I want.
We can live with it for this time. Another issue: The portlet-api jar is included in WEB-INF/lib of
shale-blank. I didn't check the others.
It's in all of them. I'll need to mark it as provided, like we did for servlet and jsp api stuff. Also, LICENSE and NOTICE are
in WEB-INF/classes. META-INF is probably more appropriate, as with the jars.
Yep ... I'll make a pass through the same sort of changes as for the libraries. [1] (Yes, I know I just rebuilt Struts 1.3.5, but at least nothing
had changed in svn since the original.)
:-) --
Wendy
Craig
