Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:08, David Jencks wrote: > Alternatively, we can use the release plugin but the release plugin > means we can't vote on the final jars since it automatically > publishes to the final repository. I just wanted to jump in and correct this misconception The release plugin doesn't publish anything anywhere. All is does is update poms, do some scm things, and re-invoke maven.It's the deploy plugin that actually does the deploy. By default, the deploy plugin will deploy to the distributionManagement stuff specified in the pom. However, it does support a "altDeploymentRepository" flag to deploy to a different location. That all said, a LOT of work was put into various maven plugins in the last couple of months of 2006 and the first few of this year to get things setup to be able to do the normal: mvn release:prepare; mvn release:perform steps and have it do it in a way acceptable to normal apache rules. That includes deploying to a staging area, GPG signing everything, injecting LICENSE and NOTICE files into the jars (including source and javadoc jars), etc... At this point, it does require a little extra configuration in the pom, but not a lot. The main thing that's still "missing" is a tool to merge the staged area into the final repository. (straight copies may not end up with the correct metadata.xml files) There is another maven plugin that does this, but it hasn't been released yet. You kind of have to check it out from svn and build it yourself to use it. Some of us release managers are pretty lazy. If all I have to do is type the above command and answer a few questions (tag names and such), I'm happy. More than that and I'm not. :-) Anyway, thanks for all the effort to get the metadata jar out to us. Thanks! -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
I apologize for the confusion with the version number in the of the ws-metadata in rc2. I have corrected it and refreshed the bundle. Cheers Prasad On 6/14/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As noted elsewhere I found some documentation on the expected release procedure and it isn't quite what I remembered. I'm fine with releasing either ws-metadata 1.1.1 spec jar, although unless someone can convince me that the scm info in the rc2 one will be correct I'd prefer to release the first one that is missing scm info. +1 to one or the other 1.1.1 ws-metadata jar. thanks david jencks On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, David Jencks wrote< > I don't understand the release process for specs to tell what is > going on, however there is no https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ > geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.1 (what i'd > expect a 1.1.1 to be under) nor a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ > geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1 (what is > actually shown in the newly added scm info). IMO its slightly > better to have no information rather than wrong information. > > At this point I'm > +0 on releasing the original (no scm info) ws-metadata 1.1.1 jar > -0 on releasing the modified one. > > Keeping track of the spec release procedure is beyond my limited > abilities, but what is happening is not what I expected. My dim > recollections of the release procedure was that we would use the > maven release plugin and that would correctly tag the source and > generate/modify all the artifacts consistent with the new tag. I'm > confused because there is no 1.1.1 tag that I can find for ws > metadata and the scm info does not appear to be getting updated. > Is this a maven bug, is it not supposed to be updated by the > release plugin, or something else? > > thanks > david jencks > > On Jun 14, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > >> CXF is looking to cut their release starting on Friday and they >> need the WS-MetaData spec. Originally this was approved except it >> was missing the SCM tag. Prasad added that but this puts this >> particular spec being released after their date. It would be >> really helpful if we could approve this spec by tomorrow >> (Friday). Anyone opposed or have a comment on how to handle this? >> >> On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: >> >>> Please review the specifications located at >>> http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2 >>> >>> The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote >>> over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml. >>> >>> I have dropped jsp specs from the vote now. >>> >>> ws-metadata will have a 3 digit version number (1.1.1) because 1.1.0 >>> was already released some 6 weeks ago. This is a minor update to the >>> released version. >>> >>> Voting concludes on Saturday, June 16th at 1700 ET. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Prasad >>> >> >
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
As noted elsewhere I found some documentation on the expected release procedure and it isn't quite what I remembered. I'm fine with releasing either ws-metadata 1.1.1 spec jar, although unless someone can convince me that the scm info in the rc2 one will be correct I'd prefer to release the first one that is missing scm info. +1 to one or the other 1.1.1 ws-metadata jar. thanks david jencks On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, David Jencks wrote: I don't understand the release process for specs to tell what is going on, however there is no https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.1 (what i'd expect a 1.1.1 to be under) nor a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1 (what is actually shown in the newly added scm info). IMO its slightly better to have no information rather than wrong information. At this point I'm +0 on releasing the original (no scm info) ws-metadata 1.1.1 jar -0 on releasing the modified one. Keeping track of the spec release procedure is beyond my limited abilities, but what is happening is not what I expected. My dim recollections of the release procedure was that we would use the maven release plugin and that would correctly tag the source and generate/modify all the artifacts consistent with the new tag. I'm confused because there is no 1.1.1 tag that I can find for ws metadata and the scm info does not appear to be getting updated. Is this a maven bug, is it not supposed to be updated by the release plugin, or something else? thanks david jencks On Jun 14, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: CXF is looking to cut their release starting on Friday and they need the WS-MetaData spec. Originally this was approved except it was missing the SCM tag. Prasad added that but this puts this particular spec being released after their date. It would be really helpful if we could approve this spec by tomorrow (Friday). Anyone opposed or have a comment on how to handle this? On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2 The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml. I have dropped jsp specs from the vote now. ws-metadata will have a 3 digit version number (1.1.1) because 1.1.0 was already released some 6 weeks ago. This is a minor update to the released version. Voting concludes on Saturday, June 16th at 1700 ET. Cheers Prasad
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:22 PM, David Jencks wrote: I don't understand the release process for specs to tell what is going on, however there is no https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.1 (what i'd expect a 1.1.1 to be under) nor a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1 (what is actually shown in the newly added scm info). IMO its slightly better to have no information rather than wrong information. Fair comment I think. For the most part few people actually follow through to actually release software and we've done a poor job of releasing them. IIRC Dain had indicated he would handle the specs but in reality it needs to be a community responsibility and not dependent on one person. So, as far as that goes, I believe we do something different in Specs than we do for the Geronimo server and I'm unaware of any documentation except perhaps older e-mail threads. If there is some doc a link would be appreciated. If there is blame to be assigned here then I spect it would be on me and not Prasad as he asked my opinion on how to do some of this. So with that, here is my input. Following what we do in Geronimo (where we do not use the release plugin for a whole raft of other reasons) the branch has been updated to look like it will exist when it is svn mv'd to https:// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/ so with that in mind I think the SCM information is correct (or will be when the vote concludes and the various bits are moved to their respective locations.) I think the SCM information is nice to have. At this point I'm +0 on releasing the original (no scm info) ws-metadata 1.1.1 jar -0 on releasing the modified one. Keeping track of the spec release procedure is beyond my limited abilities, but what is happening is not what I expected. My dim recollections of the release procedure was that we would use the maven release plugin and that would correctly tag the source and generate/modify all the artifacts consistent with the new tag. I'm confused because there is no 1.1.1 tag that I can find for ws metadata and the scm info does not appear to be getting updated. Is this a maven bug, is it not supposed to be updated by the release plugin, or something else? It is not your inability to consume them I think it is our lack of initiative to document and follow them. Since I've been release dog for a while I'll go hack up the CWiki and try to get this done once and for all. However, I'll do that on another thread. Regarding the scm tags, as I noted above, it was a manual compromise as I rememer in the past people complaining that they wanted to vote on binaries that were not being released rather than what the release plugin might generate. Perhaps my inability to recollect is contributing to this already confusing and wearing discussion on release shtuffes. I found this email from dain which is the last documentation on spec releases I can find, from dec 12 2006: Kevan asked me to go over the development/release process used when we have a single version number. 1 Make a development module in specs/trunk [Maintince] svn cp specs/tags/- specs/ trunk/ [New] make a new mvn module at specs/trunk/ 2 Make changes There is no need to update inner spec depenencies since all will be marked as scope provided in the pom, so we don't get transitive problems. 3 Vote and Release update pom version create jars vote publish svn mv specs/trunk/ specs/tags/- Alternatively, we can use the release plugin but the release plugin means we can't vote on the final jars since it automatically publishes to the final repository. BTW, I am willing to be spec release manager using this process in perpetuity. -- I'm pretty sure the release plugin can now push the artifacts to a staging area , and then later actually move them to the appropriate repo. I think it would be a good idea to investigate this and I might even be willing to do that myself. thanks david jencks
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:22 PM, David Jencks wrote: I don't understand the release process for specs to tell what is going on, however there is no https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.1 (what i'd expect a 1.1.1 to be under) nor a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1 (what is actually shown in the newly added scm info). IMO its slightly better to have no information rather than wrong information. Fair comment I think. For the most part few people actually follow through to actually release software and we've done a poor job of releasing them. IIRC Dain had indicated he would handle the specs but in reality it needs to be a community responsibility and not dependent on one person. So, as far as that goes, I believe we do something different in Specs than we do for the Geronimo server and I'm unaware of any documentation except perhaps older e-mail threads. If there is some doc a link would be appreciated. If there is blame to be assigned here then I spect it would be on me and not Prasad as he asked my opinion on how to do some of this. So with that, here is my input. Following what we do in Geronimo (where we do not use the release plugin for a whole raft of other reasons) the branch has been updated to look like it will exist when it is svn mv'd to https:// svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/ so with that in mind I think the SCM information is correct (or will be when the vote concludes and the various bits are moved to their respective locations.) I think the SCM information is nice to have. At this point I'm +0 on releasing the original (no scm info) ws-metadata 1.1.1 jar -0 on releasing the modified one. Keeping track of the spec release procedure is beyond my limited abilities, but what is happening is not what I expected. My dim recollections of the release procedure was that we would use the maven release plugin and that would correctly tag the source and generate/modify all the artifacts consistent with the new tag. I'm confused because there is no 1.1.1 tag that I can find for ws metadata and the scm info does not appear to be getting updated. Is this a maven bug, is it not supposed to be updated by the release plugin, or something else? It is not your inability to consume them I think it is our lack of initiative to document and follow them. Since I've been release dog for a while I'll go hack up the CWiki and try to get this done once and for all. However, I'll do that on another thread. Regarding the scm tags, as I noted above, it was a manual compromise as I rememer in the past people complaining that they wanted to vote on binaries that were not being released rather than what the release plugin might generate. Perhaps my inability to recollect is contributing to this already confusing and wearing discussion on release shtuffes.
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
I don't understand the release process for specs to tell what is going on, however there is no https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.1 (what i'd expect a 1.1.1 to be under) nor a https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1 (what is actually shown in the newly added scm info). IMO its slightly better to have no information rather than wrong information. At this point I'm +0 on releasing the original (no scm info) ws-metadata 1.1.1 jar -0 on releasing the modified one. Keeping track of the spec release procedure is beyond my limited abilities, but what is happening is not what I expected. My dim recollections of the release procedure was that we would use the maven release plugin and that would correctly tag the source and generate/modify all the artifacts consistent with the new tag. I'm confused because there is no 1.1.1 tag that I can find for ws metadata and the scm info does not appear to be getting updated. Is this a maven bug, is it not supposed to be updated by the release plugin, or something else? thanks david jencks On Jun 14, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: CXF is looking to cut their release starting on Friday and they need the WS-MetaData spec. Originally this was approved except it was missing the SCM tag. Prasad added that but this puts this particular spec being released after their date. It would be really helpful if we could approve this spec by tomorrow (Friday). Anyone opposed or have a comment on how to handle this? On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: Please review the specifications located at http://people.apache.org/~prasad/specs_rc2 The only changes that were made to the binaries that passed a vote over the past weekend was to add the scm section to the pom.xml. I have dropped jsp specs from the vote now. ws-metadata will have a 3 digit version number (1.1.1) because 1.1.0 was already released some 6 weeks ago. This is a minor update to the released version. Voting concludes on Saturday, June 16th at 1700 ET. Cheers Prasad
Re: Can we conclude the Vote on WS-META-Data early? --- Please resond if you object
On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: CXF is looking to cut their release starting on Friday and they need the WS-MetaData spec. Originally this was approved except it was missing the SCM tag. Prasad added that but this puts this particular spec being released after their date. It would be really helpful if we could approve this spec by tomorrow (Friday). Anyone opposed or have a comment on how to handle this? Given that the scm change is very minor and the length of time that ws-metadata has been out for a vote, I have no objection. --kevan
