Re: [DISCUSS] Staged Artifact Locations (was Re: [VOTE] Release Gossip version gossip-0.1.1-incubating (RC2))

2017-01-12 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > However, none of our incubator policies talk about this as far as I can > tell. Is this something we actually want to pursue? Also see [1]. > Most TLPs don't do this. Not sure re exact numbers, but there a number that do, or at least they document it that way :-) Thanks, Justin 1.

Re: [DISCUSS] Staged Artifact Locations (was Re: [VOTE] Release Gossip version gossip-0.1.1-incubating (RC2))

2017-01-12 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > IMO, it prevents a one-line release command for Maven projects using the > standard conventions (I'm blindly assuming is Maven is the most common tool > used). However, I can also see where Justin is coming from with the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Staged Artifact Locations (was Re: [VOTE] Release Gossip version gossip-0.1.1-incubating (RC2))

2017-01-12 Thread Josh Elser
IMO, it prevents a one-line release command for Maven projects using the standard conventions (I'm blindly assuming is Maven is the most common tool used). However, I can also see where Justin is coming from with the provenance side of things (the disconnect between what was voted on and what

[DISCUSS] Staged Artifact Locations (was Re: [VOTE] Release Gossip version gossip-0.1.1-incubating (RC2))

2017-01-12 Thread John D. Ament
So this issue pops up in a lot of podling votes. Next time could you please: - Place the artefacts for voting on in [1] that way they can be released with an svn mv command. However, none of our incubator policies talk about this as far as I can tell. Is this something we actually want to