hi,
I suggest the next iteration of development should be on another branch such as "2.6.4" or "2.6.x". We indeed should keep the pre-release branch clean (I just do some local work changing versions for our own nexus repo before). best regards, Jason > On Aug 20, 2018, at 11:02, Jun Liu <liu...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The 2.6.3 tag does not agree with the source release. This is a >> significant issue and enough for me to vote against the release. A diff >> shows most (all?) of the pom.xml have a version of "2.6.4-SNAPSHOT" in >> the tag but "2.6.3" in the source release. >> >> I dug into this a little. At first I thought the tag / commit in the >> vote was wrong. It is. But is isn't just that. If I go back to >> >> a8be0eaaddab198ed03b0150d4db03e2b22f023f >> >> things are better but: >> a) there are still differences >> b) the tag includes multiple commits after this point > > Thanks for your feedback, Mark, I have double checked the version mismatch > problem and it does exist. > > Despite that all files except for the pom version are the same, I agree it’s > still an issue that needs revoting. It will confuse developers when trying to > rebuild from the tag. The root problem is more about a package or upload > problem than a technical problem. We used maven-release-plugin to prepare for > the release, which has changed the pom version to ‘2.6.4-SNAPSHOT’ since RC1, > I remember to change to 2.6.3 before tagging in RC2 but forget to do that in > this round. > > I think we should build a release script to automate the whole release > process to avoid this kind of problems. > > Best regards, > Jun > >> On 18 Aug 2018, at 05:56, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 12/08/18 08:12, Jun Liu wrote: >> >> <snip/> >> >>> Please vote accordingly: >>> [ ] +1 approve >>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>> [X] -1 disapprove with the reason (binding) >> >> The sha512 hashes are missing the '*' marker that indicates they are >> hashes for binary files rather than text files. Trivial issue. Can be >> addressed in the next release. >> >> I'd expect the files to be named "apache-dubbo..." not "dubbo...". Nice >> to have (not all Apache projects use this naming convention). Something >> to consider for the next release. >> >> Consider including mvnw and mvnw.cmd in the source release so it is >> simpler to get started with the build from a source release. >> >> The 2.6.3 tag does not agree with the source release. This is a >> significant issue and enough for me to vote against the release. A diff >> shows most (all?) of the pom.xml have a version of "2.6.4-SNAPSHOT" in >> the tag but "2.6.3" in the source release. >> >> I dug into this a little. At first I thought the tag / commit in the >> vote was wrong. It is. But is isn't just that. If I go back to >> >> a8be0eaaddab198ed03b0150d4db03e2b22f023f >> >> things are better but: >> a) there are still differences >> b) the tag includes multiple commits after this point >> >> >> Mark >
