On 2/27/2013 4:53 AM, Peter Klügl wrote: > 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. OK, sounds like a good plan. I'll try to finish checking the remaining artifacts and vote :-)
-Marshall > > Peter > >> -Marshall > >
