the only change is that you'd have to run "mvn -Preporting site site:stage" even for mono-modules, when actually the "site:stage" part is required only for multi-module
the purpose is to have stupid easy unified instructions, without "if multi- module" step: every component has the exact same commands the drawback is that, from a pure technical point of view, "site:stage" goal could be avoided for the 80 mono-components and is absolutely required only for the 20 multi-modules: but once scm-publish plugin will be configured to publish from staging directory instead of direct site directory, "site:stage" will be required even for mono-modules. It costs typing a few letters more (or copy/pasting). Running the goal doesn't take much time (a few seconds). And I suppose nobody cares about site content being duplicated on disk, using twice space. Regards, Hervé Le samedi 14 décembre 2013 15:24:27 Robert Scholte a écrit : > Could you describe in short how the process would look like? As in > staging/performing the release and finalizing it (after enough votes). > > Robert > > Op Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:19:52 +0100 schreef Hervé BOUTEMY > > <[email protected]>: > > 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/d > >> ist -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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
