On 29.11.2006 22:06:50 Simon Pepping wrote: > A few remarks: > > In changes.html: Version 1.1 (n/a). Should n/a be changed into a date?
Yes, when it's known. > In the ant report: > [chmod] Skipping fileset for directory > /fsb/fsc/source/xmlgraphics-commons-branch-1.1/dist-bin/xmlgraphics-commons-1.1. > It is empty. > [chmod] Skipping fileset for directory > /fsb/fsc/source/xmlgraphics-commons-branch-1.1/dist-src/xmlgraphics-commons-1.1. > It is empty. > > The resulting mode is 775, not 555 as the build file seems to request. > My ant: Apache Ant version 1.6.5 compiled on July 1 2006. Hmm, I've taken this over from the FOP build. I've never explicitely tested the thing on Unix, yet. If you can figure out the original intent of the chmod, it would be cool if you looked into this since you're apparently on Unix. The chmod gets pretty much ignored on Windows. > Why do the binary distributions have the java version in their name, > and the xmlgraphics-commons-1.1.jar and the maven bundle not? Hmm, that's a good question. I guess it's laziness or no real need. I don't know enough about Maven to tell whether it is actually useful to have there. ATM, I'm not even sure if the distinction between 1.3 and 1.4 is only relevant at build time or if it also matters at runtime. After all, we only have one xmlgraphics-commons.jar in FOP/lib and it seems to work for both 1.3 and 1.4. I believe I put the 1.4 binary in there. Shrug. > In the binary distributions: Is it a good idea to put > xmlgraphics-commons-1.1.jar in the build directory? Would it not be > clearer to have a lib directory with _all_ jar files? We've had it like this in FOP for ages and other projects do the same. For me, the lib directory is sort of a read-only directory (from a build POV) with the dependencies. I prefer that all generated artifacts are placed in the build directory so that they don't interfere with version control. Just my opinion.. > Regards, Simon > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:10:27PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Could anyone please check out the 1.1 branch and throw a second pair of > > eyes on the stuff generated by an "ant dist"? > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/commons/branches/commons-1_1 > > > > If everything's ok, I'll tag the branch for 1.1 and upload the > > distribution candidates up to people.apache.org so we can vote on the > > distribution. Once everything's ok and the vote is good, we can upload > > that stuff to the mirror. This is a little different to what we've done > > before and it seems to closer mirror the expecation of the ASF > > membership concerning the release process. Any objections to this? Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
