before I update documentation and parent poms: any objection from any future release manager if we unify site:stage requirement?
Regards, Hervé Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 23:59:19 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : > really, here is the link... > https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/dist > -tool-check-source-release.html > Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 23:50:26 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit : > > (better with link) > > /> Do we have any metrics on how many mono- to multi- module builds we > > have?/ indirectly, yes: dist-tool [1] tells we have 101 releases > > > > > > plugins, shared, skins, poms, reporting and resources are mono-modules: > > 44+20+6+2+3+5 = 80 > > > > > > other ones are multi-modules: 101-80 = 21 (-3 given we have Maven 2.0, > > 2.2, > > 3.0 and 3.1) > > > > > > > > so I see 80 mono-module and 18 multi-modules > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hervé > > > > Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 11:39:13 Barrie Treloar a écrit : > > > On 10 December 2013 11:24, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 01:05:30 Michael-O a écrit : > > > >> Am 2013-12-10 00:58, schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > > >> >> <content>${project.build.directory}/staging/${maven.site.path}</co > > > >> >> nt > > > >> >> en > > > >> >> t> > > > >> > > > > >> > is not really necessary here, since skins are never multi-module, > > > >> > then > > > >> > no > > > >> > need to site:stage > > > >> > > > > >> > that's not a blocking issue, since it will work: just need to do > > > >> > extra > > > >> > site:stage step, not usually needed > > > >> > > > >> I am aware of that. That change was intentional. It conforms to all > > > >> other POMs and to the procedure described in the docs. Nothing more, > > > >> nothing less. > > > > > > > > not really what I wanted to express with "if the component has > > > > multiple > > > > modules, locally stage the site:" > > > > but staging in every situation has the advantage that instructions > > > > would > > > > not be different for mono-module and multi-module > > > > > > > > I don't know what you all prefer: simpler instructions for mono-module > > > > (but > > > > require a little thinking to know in which situation a build is) or > > > > uniform > > > > instructions (even if it is a little more complex than absolutely > > > > necessary > > > > for mono-modules) > > > > > > > > the ideal situation would be a site:deploy goal that does all the > > > > magic > > > > in > > > > case of scm: dist management site url > > > > anybody interested in trying to do it with me? > > > > > > You might want to pull this out into a new thread. - Why dont I do > > > that... > > > I have been following because we had someone new wanting to do RM and > > > I was interested in their pain. > > > > > > I'm not sure I have a preference since its been so long since I last > > > did a release. > > > > > > I definitely want to follow the instructions so that I dont stuff > > > something > > > up. Which would make me lean to unified instructions to make it easier > > > to > > > update the instructions when necessary. > > > > > > Do we have any metrics on how many mono- to multi- module builds we > > > have? > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
