On 26.02.2013 20:29, Marshall Schor wrote:
On 2/26/2013 9:02 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
On 26.02.2013 14:49, Marshall Schor wrote:
On 2/26/2013 8:14 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
<snip>
Hmm, I do not remember it exactly, but I think one step was missing. Right now
I deactivated assembly.attach and activated maven-deploy-plugin in the "build
distribution" profile. <snip>
Should I propare a new RC or can we improve that in the next release?
If you choose option (1) (from the other thread about what to do regarding the
binary convenience builds) which is to not include these in the release, then of
course, the missing asc files don't matter :-)
Let me know if you choose option 2 - because the zip and tar.gz files are not
identical between dist2/ and dist (they have different MD5 signatures, for
instance), I'll need to recheck the "signed" ones.
Yes, I noticed that the signatures changed and, therefore, I recreated
the assemblies and signed them again in one go.
Let's take option (1). I completely agree with your argument in your
last mail. The first impression often determines whether a tool is taken
into consideration at all. Just to explain my hurry a bit: Some time
already went by since I contributed textmarker and I suppose some people
already use the system, but there is no official released version yet.
Access to the documentation and the update site is quite cumbersome for
normal users. A not-so-perfect release has maybe more advantages than
disadvantages, and there is still so much work to do that the next
release will hopefully happen in six months' time.
Peter
-Marshall
