Counting my own +1, we have three +1 and one -1. The vote pass. I will publish the release.
Nicolas > Le 22 déc. 2014 à 17:57, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org> a écrit > : > > I have signed the tag: > See > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ant-ivy.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0 > <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ant-ivy.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0> > > <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ant-ivy.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0 > > <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ant-ivy.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0>> > > I’ve also build the updatesite ready to be published: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ant/ivyde/updatesite/ivy-2.4.0.final_20141213170938/ > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ant/ivyde/updatesite/ivy-2.4.0.final_20141213170938/> > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ant/ivyde/updatesite/ivy-2.4.0.final_20141213170938/ > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ant/ivyde/updatesite/ivy-2.4.0.final_20141213170938/>> > > And I’ve pushed the jars to the Nexus staging repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheant-1006/ > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheant-1006/> > > So I think we’re good. For now we have one -1 and three +1 (including me). > > I’ll keep the vote open a couple of days, to be sure everyone had the time to > vote. And I’ll promote the artifacts. > > Nicolas > >> Le 17 déc. 2014 à 14:25, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org >> <mailto:nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org>> a écrit : >> >> >>> 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> >> <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
