Russ, Our team, for an example, performs the release:prepare to verify the code and apply the label. We then check out the label to perform the build, perform an assembly, and call an outside script with parameters that it reads from an outside system and updates that outside system with a deployable package and logfiles from the build.
We find this a million times easier to regulate and enforce than having 500 different applications create a custom lifecycle in their projects and have the possibility of having things out of sync with process. That being said, we wouldn't want to see that go away (since we never ever use release:perform) - but would welcome another target to the release plugin which combines prepare and perform. tl;dr - Even if there doesn't seem to be a need for modularity in some process or plugin, invariably there is a team that relies on its existance in order to function correctly. Thanks, Roy Lyons Senior Configuration Engineer On 4/17/13 12:34 PM, "Russell Gold" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >Why does the normal release process require both release:prepare and then >release:perform? Under what conditions would you choose not to do the >perform step after a successful prepare step? Why do both generate source >and javadoc jars and prompt for the PGP pass phrase? > >Thanks, >Russ >----------------- >Come read my webnovel, Take a Lemon <http://www.takealemon.com>, >and listen to the Misfile radio play ><http://www.gold-family.us/audio/misfile.html>! > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
