There have been a few threads spawned on various ASF lists lately about the release process at the ASF and Maven projects and other Apache projects that use Maven being compliant.

A documentation patch for the release page at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html is pending, but it's close enough that I can summarize it here. The ASF produces Open _Source_ releases. The primary artifact that is to be released and voted upon is a source archive that is sufficient for others to use to produce the product. Binaries that are also released have additional requirements such as NOTICE and LICENSE files, but these are not considered to be the primary release -- the source archive is.

Part of the default release profile in Maven is to generate sources jars. These sources jars contain the java packages only and not the pom.xml or any resources or test resources actually used to build the project. In short, they aren't really close at all to what you might find in an svn tag for the same release. The primary use of these jars is by IDEs for debugging purposes. The Maven Core releases do produce source archives using the assembly plugin. Plugins, Shared, and other smaller releases do not. This part is not in compliance with the ASF release process and needs to be fixed before the next release.

A simple solution to this problem is to bind the assembly plugin using a src descriptor to the pom. This will work in the short term for releases ready to go like the archetype plugin. However, it won't be very maintainable since we have over 60 modules (i stopped counting after plugins and shared) that are individually released. If we bind the plugin in the Maven pom, it would produce source archives for every single module recursively, which is not what we want here.

To solve this, I've added a new flag to the Assembly plugin that will tell the plugin to only run in the Execution Root folder and skip everything else. The enforcer plugin tree is a good example of how this will work. The plugin binding would be defined in the Maven pom and thus inherited down to the Enforcer. The Enforcer tree looks like this:

\
+---enforcer-api
+---enforcer-rules
+---maven-enforcer-plugin
\---pom.xml

Normally I would do a release of the enforcer from the top and release the parent, the api, rules and plugin all at once. In this case I want the source archive to zip up the entire tree. However, I may do a release of the plugin only. In this case I would run from the \enforcer\maven-enforcer-plugin subfolder. In this case, I want the just maven-enforcer-plugin source archive because that's what I'm releasing.

The new flag in the assembly plugin would allow both cases to work without changing the poms, because the goal would skip in any project that doesn't match where Maven was executed (!session.getExecutionRootDir().equals(basedir))

Eventually if we get this perfected, it would be appropriate to bump up to the Apache pom so it would just work out of the box for most projects. Since we may have to adjust the archive contents down the road, we should make the descriptor separate from the plugin itself. This can be done by producing a jar that contains an Apache Source Bundle descriptor, and adding this to the assembly plugin classpath in the execution. This will allow us to release this independent and it would also make it easier for projects to override the descriptor in their projects as needed.

I'll also add a skip property specific to this execution in the release profile to allow projects that have existing source archives to be unaffected.

To make this happen relatively quickly, I'll take finish my patch by adding tests, and then stage a release of the assembly plugin 2.2-beta-3.1 by applying only this patch to the existing beta-3 tag so we can cut a release without a bunch of hand wrangling over what needs to be fixed in beta-4.

Any concerns or objections to the above plan?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to