On 1/23/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/22/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have created a release candidate for DBCP 1.2.2. No KEYS file (I got your key from Math). So this is mostly a reminder to add yourself to the DBCP one. .asc's look good once I found the key.
Yes, will do that. You're using the old way of release - nowadays we're svelte and
modern. We create the release as if it was the real thing - 1.2.2 rather than 1.2.2-rc1, upload to a directory with 1.2.2-rc1/ and tag it 1.2.2-rc1 , and then rollback the versions in svn. jar/pom wouldn't go into the snapshot repo then though - just put them in the same directory as the rc.
Me likes old way - I don't remember agreeing that having binaries, tars, jars, etc floating around with "release" names was a good thing. Even if only in home directory, I do not like this. I want people to download and *test* the RC, which is unsanitary if it has a release name. When the music has stopped and we are voting on a release package, then I am fine putting the actual bits out there to vote on, which I agree is a good thing. Could be I am just arguing about timing, but to me an RC is an RC - not a final release. I also don't like the rollback idea above. That looks like an abuse of scm to me. Of course, I may be missing some important subtlety, in which case I will revise my view of how revision history should work ;-) I suspect this still needs documenting. Shame on me (and others who've
done the releases this way :) ). I wonder how Maven-2 is going to affect it. I committed a change for the build.properties.sample based on trying to use Ant. Very minor - hopefully not something that would be an inconvenience. Src builds happily with Ant and Maven. Exceptions with Ant, but I'm assuming it's okay as the build completes. MD5s pass. This page should mention 1.2.2: http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/dbcp-1.2.2-RC1/docs/downloads.html <http://people.apache.org/%7Epsteitz/dbcp-1.2.2-RC1/docs/downloads.html>
Good catch. Yes, will fix. and a 1.2.2.html page is needed.
The two links to javadocs in the navbar point to the same javadoc. Either they shouldn't, or one should be removed.
OK, I can get rid of one of them. Otherwise - looks good. Thanks! Phil
