Le 08/06/15 10:33, Cédric Champeau a écrit : > I would have appreciated that feedback earlier when we asked for it, and > that was precisely why I was reluctant on starting a release before we > addressed all of those issues. Can you point us to the mail you asked for a clarification rela ted to this exact issue ? To me, it seems like Roman discovered the pb while running rat on the resulting packages, right ?
> Our build always produces those artifacts so > it was easy to check. We don't check the packages regularly. The idea is to have a process that do that *before* the release, in order to cacth all of the issues. But there is more than just the packages, and it would have been convenient to ask for a pre-check before the release to avoid such frustrating problem. > The fact of having to do a time consuming release to > check for it is already too late and wasting our time, I must say I'm a bit > frustrated. Should I cancel the vote? It's up to you. There is not veto for a release (ie if someone -1 a release, we are just in a situation where a majority of +1 wins. Now, the concern has been raised, and youc an perfectly decide to keep the release as is, assuming you are going to cut a new one soon enough. IMHO, it's enough to inform users about this potential problem for those who might see it as is. Would you spend some time using a fixed version of your javadoc plugin for the next release, I think that would be good enough.
