Well let's change that. Hudson has shown, MANY relases made FREQUENTLY is better than fewer.
Could we have a public staging repo... and have the rule that to deploy to this repo you don't need a vote... to promote from that repo to repo1 you need the vote. Then, we just roll relases to the stanging repo as we develop rather than having to call votes (which is a higher barrier) If that means that repo1 has maven-foo-plugin version 2.0.7 and 2.0.983 and nothing inbetween because nobody called a vote... I say fine -Stephen On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The option is to allow timestamp for SNAPSHOT dependencies, considering the > timestamp jar will not be updated as a SNAPSHOT would, and so the build > get's reproductible ... until the snapshot repo gets cleaned ! > > The idea is interesting as we hardly get plugin releases, and have no > roadmap for them, so a project that requires a bug fix has no other option > > > 2008/8/13 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Oooooh! there's an option to allow snapshot dependencies in release? > Cool! > > I did not know that... Now I can go cause me a heap load of trouble! > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Would you DEPLOY a snapshot without first testing and commiting ? > > > > > > You're right that this is not a 100% safe way to fix this issue, just > an > > > attempt to make things (a little bit) more stable. > > > A full fix would be to never use SNAPSHOTs, and to deprecate > > > release/enforcer option to accept them ;-) > > > > > > 2008/8/13 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Of course the problem with that is what if there were local changes > > when > > > > the > > > > build was made? Now the SCM revision is meaningless > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Recent snapshot repository purge introduced issues for those of us > > that > > > > > depend on a specific timestamp SNAPSHOT. This is supposed to be a > > valid > > > > > usecase as supported by the release and enforcer plugins. > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to rebuild such jars, as we can get the sources > from > > > SCM > > > > > according to date, but cannot build and deploy the jar with the > > > expected > > > > > name (manual renaming is required). > > > > > > > > > > Could we consider for future the option to use the SCM revision ( > for > > > SCM > > > > > that support this option, but most of us use SVN ;-) ) in > replacement > > > to > > > > a > > > > > timestamp, so that a specific timestamp can easily be rebuilded at > > > > anytime > > > > > ? > > > > > The version format could be "X.Y.Z-revision-ABCDE". > > > > > > > > > > Nicolas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
