Totally agreed, my point was uniqueness and reproducabilty, so 3.0.5 etc.
would be perfect IMO.
Regards Mirko
--
Sent from my phone
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com
http://github.com/mfriedenhagen/
https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Dec 5, 2011 3:18 PM, "Stephen Connolly"
wrote:
>
Fair enough. I confused RC with alpha/beta versions we had in the past.
I can't recall if RCs were available from download page, though.
--
Regards,
Igor
On 11-12-05 9:33 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
But we have never made the RCs available from Maven Central.
http://search.maven.org/#search%7C
Well I would say, given the confusion over RCs or not RCs that when you
spin the official build, just build it as 3.0.5 so that there is no
official 3.0.4 and anyone who had one of the first two RCs can be clear
that it was an RC
On 5 December 2011 14:33, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2011/12/5 Stephen
2011/12/5 Stephen Connolly :
> Personally, I'd rather burn 3.0.4 and have 3.0.5, 3.0.6, etc
>
> version numbers are cheap...
>
> if anyone asks what happend to 3.0.4, we just say, oh that was not
> released, there's a tag of it in svn, but there are no binaries or source
> distributions because it
But we have never made the RCs available from Maven Central.
http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22maven-core%22
Show me an RC version in that list!
On 5 December 2011 14:30, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> This approach fails to make the release candida
This approach fails to make the release candidate available to a wider
community. We need to make release candidate builds available for
download and from maven central repository so early adopters can try
them easily. But we also need to have release candidates clearly marked
as such so more cons
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather burn 3.0.4 and have 3.0.5, 3.0.6, etc
> version numbers are cheap...
> if anyone asks what happend to 3.0.4, we just say, oh that was not
> released, there's a tag of it in svn, but there are no binaries or source
> d
Personally, I'd rather burn 3.0.4 and have 3.0.5, 3.0.6, etc
version numbers are cheap...
if anyone asks what happend to 3.0.4, we just say, oh that was not
released, there's a tag of it in svn, but there are no binaries or source
distributions because it failed for some reason.
On 5 December 20
Hello everybody,
I understand the need to distinguish between these attempts. I now
have a local copy of 3.0.4 on my disc (as well as on some others).
Next month forgetful as I am, I will not know anymore which of the
different 3.0.4 copies was the blessed one. Let alone that the tag in
subversion
> Again I start a release process and produce a "candidate for release"
> build with a naming 3.0.4 for 5 days vote.
> Something failed, so it has been fixed and I restarted a vote with a
> second "candidate for release" called 3.0.4 for 5 days vote.
> (retagging etc )
>
> What is the differenc
Please change subject as it's not related to the vote thread.
2011/12/3 Brian Fox :
> The RCs were started for a very specific reason, to improve the
> quality of our releases. Just breezing through this thread, there are
> clearly issues with memory and some other stuff here that may be
Most of
11 matches
Mail list logo
