On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I still think Maven should be a downstream issue. >> >> +1 >> >> Maven has never been a required part of our releases, and I don't >> think we should change that. >> >> We should also keep in mind that there's nothing really official about >> a "release manager". >> There's no reason the person(s) that signed the normal release need to >> be the same person that signs the maven stuff (but it should be a PMC >> member if it's hosted by the ASF). >> >> If there are people around during a release that want to handle the >> maven stuff, that seems fine. It does *not* have to be the release >> manager. It seems fine to make reasonable accommodations if some are >> working on making maven artifacts available at roughly the same... but >> if not, it should not hold up the release. > > I completely disagree.
With what part? Do you mean to say you wish to make maven a required part of our releases? If so, perhaps you should call a vote? > It's either a first class citizen or it's not and by moving it out It is not a first class citizen. Apparently the last Solr release went out w/o working maven support. But it's not quite so black and white either... I see no reason to *remove* maven related stuff from ant (and it's good if people improve it), and I've even applied patches to the maven stuff when supplied by others. -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
