Yes, it is already in the last attempt. Nicolas
> Le 17 déc. 2014 à 22:56, anto...@gmx.de a écrit : > > Hi I think the bintray resolver is part of the future release. > > Antoine Levy-Lambert > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "JBaruch" <jbar...@jfrog.com> > To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org> > Subject: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2 > Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 3:47 PM > > Sorry to nag here, but any chance you can sneak the bintray resolver in? > Now, when it has documentation and everything? > Pretty please? > > Baruch. > > -- > JFrog Developer Advocate > www.jfrog.com > +972544954353 > @jbaruch <https://twitter.com/jbaruch/> > http://linkd.in/jbaruch > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org >> wrote: >> >> >>> Le 17 déc. 2014 à 04:09, Antoine Levy Lambert <anto...@gmx.de> a écrit : >>> >>> Nicolas, Jean-Louis, what are your thoughts ? >>> >>> The problem reported by Stefan with the ivy.xml in the source archive >> must be caused by something in the build process replacing the ivy.xml of >> the source tree with an expanded version of the same file generated when >> the <ivy:publish/> task runs ? >> >> The purpose of this change is that it fixes the dependencies of Ivy. I see >> no particular harm here. >> >> But as Stefan, generally speaking, I prefer the source release to be an >> extract of the source repository. So there is no possible confusion. >> >>> I guess a minor edit in the build file to make this modified version of >> ivy.xml go somewhere under the build folder should address this issue for >> this release and the next ones. >>> >>> I have not spent myself a lot of time on ivy yet but I would like to >> spend some in 2015 - or maybe even next week if my kids are busy out of the >> house … >>> >>> I also know how it feels when one creates a release candidate and some >> minor problems are found and one has to again go through 20 steps in a >> ReleaseInstructions document … >> >> Actually releasing Ivy is quite straight forward, no issues with that. >> See: http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html < >> http://ant.apache.org/ivy/history/trunk/dev/makerelease.html> >> Probably the signing of the artifacts can be more automatic. I have seen >> there is ant target for that but I haven’t tested it yet. >> >> What trouble me more is what is the exact process to push artifacts into >> Maven repo after the release. And we’ll need to figure out how to push it >> into the Eclipse updatesite too. >> >>> But I am sure we will get there finally. >> >> I am sure too. We have to either be patient or actively act on it, >> depending on our available time. >> >>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> We should be using signed tags (git tag -s or -u) rather than >>>> lightweight tags for releases. I know we haven't cut any releases from >>>> git so far, so we'll be learning as we go along. >> >> I do not know how it works, but I’ll figure it out. And update the release >> documentation. >> >> Nicolas >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
