On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:24 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 13:46 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > > > > Hi > > > > I think that myfaces-builder-plugin has been very well > > tested so we can release a first version of this tool. > > > > Is there any task left? > > I think there is still a fair bit of work that could be done > > on the plugin. However I don't see any reason why we can't > > make a release now. > > > > Hmm..by the way, I just noticed that the pom does not specify > > a <version> tag. So it is inheriting that from its parent, and > > therefore existing snapshots are all 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT which is > > rather odd for a project that has never been released. What > > version number will be used for the first release? > > > > Since there was only one release of myfaces build tools, maybe we can > > release individually myfaces-builder-plugin and > > myfaces-builder-annotations, so the release number could be 1.0.0. But > > I feel better is we release all plugins buildtools plugin (1.0.1). A > > version number is just a number, no?. > > I don't think it makes any sense to release the whole set of myfaces > plugins. Code shouldn't be released that hasn't been tested, and there > is no way that we can retest every one of those plugins now. > > I'm *guessing* that the original argument for releasing all these at > once is that they were all needed for a trinidad release, and that if > the trinidad release built and ran ok, then that was sufficient testing > to prove that the plugins were ok. > > That's a reasonable arguments for plugins that have only one purpose > (build trinidad), and are never expected to be used in any other > situation. But that's certainly not the case for the > myfaces-builder-plugin. It is: > (a) used by a number of different myfaces projects, and > (b) theoretically useable by non-myfaces projects > > So IMO it needs its own release cycle. And I would suggest that the > other plugins be managed the same way to; in the next version of > trinidad, a few of these plugins might need modifications but not all, > and it would be just crazy to re-release plugins that have not changed > at all. > > This is consistent with what we do elsewhere. Myfaces Core api+impl are > released together because it makes no sense to do anything else. But > Orchestra core and core15 are released independently, as they are NOT > tightly coupled. > > Just for reference, the plugins that currently have 1.0.0 releases are: > myfaces-faces-plugin > myfaces-i18n-plugin > myfaces-javacc-plugin > myfaces-javascript-plugin > myfaces-jdev-plugin > myfaces-tagdoc-plugin > myfaces-wagon-plugin > myfaces-xrts-plugin > and were all released simultaneously on 2008-04-20. > > I would suggest we do this: > * do a 1.0.1 release of the parent pom > * add an explicit <version> to the pom of every plugin (initially set to > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT) (and also set parent pom version to 1.0.1).
I don't know how to release a parent pom only. Should this be done manually? > * create a RELEASE-NOTES.txt file for myfaces-builder-plugin explaining > why the first release is numbered 1.0.1 > * do a first release of myfaces-builder-plugin as version 1.0.1 > > Any other plugins that need to be modified and released should then be > released individually as needed. > It's ok, since in that case the parent pom is already released. > > (NB: we should use 1.0.1 as the first release number for > myfaces-builder-plugin because we have already been creating > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT versions in the apache snapshot repo, as the version > number was being inherited from the parent pom). > > > > > > > The parent pom does need to be released first, and that > > currently depends on the new myfaces-master-pom which depends > > on the new checkstyle module. The release process for the > > master pom and checkstyle is currently in progress; there are > > now enough +1s so I will finish the release of these tonight. > > That's a little short of the recommended 72 hours since the RC > > announcement (only 48 hours), but these modules are really > > only internal so I hope no-one will be annoyed by that. > > Regards, > Simon > > > > >
