I'm -1 as well and agree with David J. The proper release process (even for a pom) is to first cut the candidate on which is voted. Instead of first voting and then cutting the candidate.
Carsten David Jencks wrote: > -1 > > scm info is wrong (should end in "trunk") > depends on unreleased parent pom. I'd have no problem voting on both > poms together. > > versions are not specified for maven-clean-plugin and > maven-compiler-plugin. Are they specified elsewhere? > > Since including non-java files in src/main/java and src/test/java is > very bad practice I would prefer to not support it and force any project > that does wish to do this to muck up its own pom rather than promoting > it with the resource settings in the root pom. However this is not > enough for a -1. > > As with the portals-pom I'd prefer to see the "review copy" in a nexus > staging repo and the actual artifact being voted on in a svn tag. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Randy Watler wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Vivek Kumar wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As with the earlier proposed release of the portal-pom for the >>> portals project, we also propose to release an applications-pom for the >>> applications project. >>> >>> I'd like to make a release of this parent POM so that we can start >>> referring to a non-SNAPSHOT version, >>> applications pom is available here for review >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/portals/applications/applications-pom/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup >>> >>> >>> Please vote on releasing this version 1.0 of Applications-pom >>> POM. The vote is open for the next 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 for Release >>> [ ] -1 Don't release, reason >>> >>> Here's my +1. >>> >>> Vivek Kumar >>> >>> >> > > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
