Hi Enrico,
> Il giorno dom 10 gen 2021 alle ore 22:13 Damien Diederen <
> ddiede...@sinenomine.net> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi Enrico, all,
>>
>> Following the instructions in "Create a branch (when you create X.Y.0
>> and move master to X.Y+1.0)" in Confluence,¹ I noticed that:
>>
>> 1. The 'mvn release:branch' command does not seem to fully interpolate
>> commit messages; I get:
>>
>> [maven-release-plugin] prepare branch @{releaseLabel}
>
> This is strange, which version of Maven are you using? I suggest to use
> 3.6.3
It is.
I have been using the Docker environment, and just double-checked: it is
Maven 3.6.3, as expected:
$ mvn --version
Apache Maven 3.6.3 (cecedd343002696d0abb50b32b541b8a6ba2883f)
Maven home: /usr/share/maven
Java version: 1.8.0_275, vendor: Oracle Corporation, runtime:
/usr/local/openjdk-8/jre
Default locale: en, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "5.4.0-42-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"
I am seeing the same results with Maven outside of Docker…
… and looking at this code, I cannot say I am surprised:
https://github.com/apache/maven-release/blob/761ab3b03cc3/maven-release-manager/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/shared/release/phase/AbstractScmCommitPhase.java#L224-L231
It seems that the token which gets replaced for branches is
'@{branchName}'. And indeed, this produces the expected result:
mvn release:branch \
-DbranchName=$BRANCH_NAME \
-DdevelopmentVersion=$MASTER_DEVELOPMENT_VERSION \
-DscmBranchCommitComment='@{prefix} prepare branch @{branchName}' \
-Pfull-build
I may be missing something, but it looks like the template is wrong:
https://github.com/apache/maven-release/blob/761ab3b03cc3/maven-release-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/release/BranchReleaseMojo.java#L230-L231
This partial revert of ZOOKEEPER-3791 "fixes" it:
--- a/pom.xml
+++ b/pom.xml
@@ -694,6 +694,7 @@
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-release-plugin</artifactId>
+ <version>2.5.3</version>
</plugin>
Hmm… I suppose I'll create a ticket for reverting that specific
version, and ask upstream what is going on.
>> 2. Tags are named via "release-$RELEASE_VERSION-$RC_NUM", instead of
>> "...-rc$RC_NUM" for 3.5+. Is that on purpose?
>
> yes it is, already pointed out by someone, but not an issue from my point
> of view
> good catch
Okay. Was just wondering :)
Cheers, -D
