Strange, I also did it and this problem has not appeared. After a diff on the generated poms, it seems everything went well with the dry run. I also added a profile for the generation of pgp signatures [1] and commented the droids-example module since we don't want it to be released it now.
Do I run the mvn release:prepare without the dry run parameter to see the magic in action? ;-) [1] - https://docs.sonatype.org/display/Repository/How+To+Generate+PGP+Signatures+With+Maven On 24 February 2011 10:12, Thorsten Scherler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:45 +0100, Chapuis Bertil wrote: > > It seems that it is possible to perform a dry run: > > > > mvn release:prepare -DdryRun=true > > > > I can try but I hope it will have no direct effects on the repository. > > Yeah I just did that but get an error. > [INFO] Missing: > [INFO] ---------- > [INFO] 1) > > com.google.code.maven-scm-provider-svnjava:maven-scm-provider-svnjava:jar:1.13-SNAPSHOT > > Looks quite weird however > > [INFO] Path to dependency: > [INFO] 1) > org.codehaus.mojo:buildnumber-maven-plugin:maven-plugin:1.0-beta-5-SNAPSHOT > [INFO] 2) > > com.google.code.maven-scm-provider-svnjava:maven-scm-provider-svnjava:jar:1.13-SNAPSHOT > > seems to come from "buildnumber-maven-plugin" > > salu2 > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2011 13:21, Thorsten Scherler <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:49 +0100, Chapuis Bertil wrote: > > > I had a look at the apache documentation page for releases > > [1]. The section > > > "Prepare your pom for release" says : Make sure there are no > > snapshots in > > > the POMs to be released. Does it means we have to change all > > the version > > > numbers in our pom files? I thought that the maven release > > plugin was asking > > > for the release number and making the changes automatically. > > > > > > I tied to use it ones in a client project but I can remember > > that I had > > to drop it since it did to much (including it tagged the scm > > rep). I am > > not sure whether we can make it staged to review the different > > steps. > > > > salu2 > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html > > > > > > > > > On 21 February 2011 21:19, Eugen Paraschiv > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I've used maven-release-plugin before. It requires a few > > elements to be > > > > present in the pom and does indeed do all of the work for > > you. I will follow > > > > up with a quick guide from my own documentation about how > > to use it and what > > > > it needs. > > > > Eugen. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Chapuis Bertil > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> The opened tickets for the release 0.0.1 are nearly all > > closed. As Otis > > > >> mentioned it, it may be a good idea to release. > > > >> > > > >> I had a look at the maven-release-plugin. It seems that > > mvn > > > >> release:prepare > > > >> [1] is doing most of the work. Since it looks quite > > magic, I wanted to > > > >> know > > > >> who already did that in the past with another > > project :-). > > > >> > > > >> At this step, several questions also occurs about how > > releases will be > > > >> managed. > > > >> > > > >> - Do we set a time scope for the next release? > > > >> - How do we prioritize the tickets? > > > >> - Who wants to provide patches? > > > >> - Etc... > > > >> > > > >> Thanks in advance for your feedbacks, > > > >> > > > >> [1] - > > > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2008/08/31/using-maven-release-plugin > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 15 February 2011 11:44, Eugen Paraschiv > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > I have moved some of these issues to 0.0.2. I'm > > tracking the final 3 and > > > >> > making the necessary changes to get them committed > > during the next few > > > >> days > > > >> > if possible. Than, perhaps we get to 0.0.2. > > > >> > Eugen. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Chapuis Bertil > > <[email protected]> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > In fact, I can't reschedule the tickets I doesn't > > own. May the issues > > > >> > > owners > > > >> > > reschedule the tickets they have from 0.0.1 to 0.0.2 > > or provide the > > > >> > > necessary patches to include them in the release? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I hadn't a deep look a DROIDS-106 but a working patch > > has been > > > >> provided > > > >> > by > > > >> > > Eugen. It introduce the usage of Guava. We may > > include it in the > > > >> release. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The tickets to reschedule are the followings: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > *Eugen Paraschiv* > > > >> > > DROIDS-89 > no patch > > > >> > > DROIDS-112 > no patch > > > >> > > DROIDS-113 > a patch is provided > tests are not > > passing > > > >> > > DROIDS-114 > Eugen Paraschiv > no patch > > > >> > > > > > >> > > *Oleg Kalnichevski * > > > >> > > DROIDS-35 > > no patch > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks in advance. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 8 February 2011 17:19, Chapuis Bertil > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Reactivation of the release thread. :-) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I can move the opened issues from 0.1 to 0.2. For > > the other aspects > > > >> of > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > release, I'm not really familiar with the process. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > What has to be done ? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On 24 December 2010 06:56, Otis Gospodnetic < > > > >> > [email protected] > > > >> > > >wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Hi Salu & others: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> * Does anyone know what it takes to create a > > release? Droids > > > >> hasn't > > > >> > > >> actually > > > >> > > >> had any releases, has it? > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> * Would anyone be interested in simply making A > > release off of the > > > >> > trunk > > > >> > > >> now? > > > >> > > >> I see no reason not to do that. It always helps > > to have a > > > >> release. > > > >> > > Call > > > >> > > >> it > > > >> > > >> 0.1. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> * Should somebody with some level of understanding > > of Droids move > > > >> all > > > >> > > >> appropriate Unscheduled issues to 0.0.1 version > > (or 0.2 if somebody > > > >> > can > > > >> > > >> create > > > >> > > >> 0.1 off trunk now), so anyone who can review > > patches knows which > > > >> > patches > > > >> > > >> need to > > > >> > > >> be reviewed first? > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Otis > > > >> > > >> ---- > > > >> > > >> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene > > - Nutch > > > >> > > >> Lucene ecosystem search :: > > http://search-lucene.com/ > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Bertil Chapuis > > > >> > > > Agimem Sàrl > > > >> > > > http://www.agimem.com > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > Bertil Chapuis > > > >> > > Agimem Sàrl > > > >> > > http://www.agimem.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Bertil Chapuis > > > >> Agimem Sàrl > > > >> http://www.agimem.com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.at.apache.org> > > codeBusters S.L. - web based systems > > <consulting, training and solutions> > > http://www.codebusters.es/ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Bertil Chapuis > > Agimem Sàrl > > http://www.agimem.com > > > > > > -- > Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.at.apache.org> > codeBusters S.L. - web based systems > <consulting, training and solutions> > http://www.codebusters.es/ > > -- Bertil Chapuis Agimem Sàrl http://www.agimem.com
