[VOTE] Release Apache Maven Wagon version 2.5
Hi, We solved 6 issues: https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10335&version=19092 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: https://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20WAGON%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-036/ https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-036/org/apache/maven/wagon/wagon/2.5/wagon-2.5-source-release.zip Source release checksum: wagon-2.5-source-release.zip sha1: f0fca0335061d21ca1306298033299c244ea88f1 Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/wagon-archives/wagon-LATEST/ Guide to testing staged releases: http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Thanks, ~t~
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
+1 (non-binding) tested on Apache Mahout trunk Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:16 PM, sebb wrote: > > > On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, > but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > >> > >> Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things > look OK. > >> > >> I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks > OK.There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the > release (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and > /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but those files really are specific > to our scm and thus don't need to be in the source release. > > > > OK, so is it necessary to check the release against the tag? > > That's one way, sure. > > Personally, I log the trunk/master/branch, find the appropriate commit for > "prepare release maven-3.1.1", check that out, then diff that with the src > tar ball as well as diff that with the tag to make sure all three match up. > Likely not necessary with git where the tag would apply directly to that > commit, but with subversion, it is certainly possible that the three don't > match and the diffs make sure to check that.If any of the three diffs > find differences, it's an immediate red-flag for further review and likely > require a -1 on the vote until resolved. > > > Or is that just your personal take on what a reviewer should do? > > A reviewer should do whatever they feel is necessary to do a thorough > review. > > > If it is necessary (for at least one reviewer) to do, then the SCM > > coordinates need to be provided in a transparent manner so any > > reviewer can do it, and the coordinates need to be part of the vote > > e-mail "for the public record". > > No, each reviewer should do what they feel is appropriate for them. If > every reviewer did the exact same thing, we'd get the exact same result > from each of them. Some reviewers may checkout the tag, others may troll > back master, others may do something completely different. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > -1 > > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE > files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely needs > to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, but might tomorrow > if someone doesn't beat me to it. The N&L files should also be present at the top-level of SCM. That is not a release-blocker per se, however if they had been there they would likely also be in the source archives at the top-level, which is a release blocker IMO. > Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things look OK. > > I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks OK. > There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the release > (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but > those files really are specific to our scm and thus don't need to be in the > source release. > > Most likely, the doap_Maven.rdf shouldn't be part of the release either. > Probalby shouldn't be in the main maven git repo. Definitely not a big deal. > > Dan > > > > On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved: >> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968 >> >> Staging repo: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/ >> >> The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/ >> >> Specifically the zip, tarball, and source archives can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.zip >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.tar.gz >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.zip >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.tar.gz >> >> Vote open for 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 >> >> Thanks, >> >> The Maven Team >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
-1 due to the issue found by Dan about Notice and License files Otherwise I tested it on various projects and found no regressions Cheers On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Stevo Slavić wrote: > +1 (non-binding) tested on Apache Mahout trunk > > Kind regards, > Stevo Slavic. > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:16 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > > On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > >> > > >> -1 > > >> > > >> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > > LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > > definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, > > but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > > >> > > >> Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things > > look OK. > > >> > > >> I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks > > OK.There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the > > release (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and > > /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but those files really are > specific > > to our scm and thus don't need to be in the source release. > > > > > > OK, so is it necessary to check the release against the tag? > > > > That's one way, sure. > > > > Personally, I log the trunk/master/branch, find the appropriate commit > for > > "prepare release maven-3.1.1", check that out, then diff that with the > src > > tar ball as well as diff that with the tag to make sure all three match > up. > > Likely not necessary with git where the tag would apply directly to that > > commit, but with subversion, it is certainly possible that the three > don't > > match and the diffs make sure to check that.If any of the three diffs > > find differences, it's an immediate red-flag for further review and > likely > > require a -1 on the vote until resolved. > > > > > Or is that just your personal take on what a reviewer should do? > > > > A reviewer should do whatever they feel is necessary to do a thorough > > review. > > > > > If it is necessary (for at least one reviewer) to do, then the SCM > > > coordinates need to be provided in a transparent manner so any > > > reviewer can do it, and the coordinates need to be part of the vote > > > e-mail "for the public record". > > > > No, each reviewer should do what they feel is appropriate for them. If > > every reviewer did the exact same thing, we'd get the exact same result > > from each of them. Some reviewers may checkout the tag, others may troll > > back master, others may do something completely different. > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > -- - Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote: > On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > > -1 > > > > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, > but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > > The N&L files should also be present at the top-level of SCM. > That is not a release-blocker per se, however if they had been there > they would likely also be in the source archives at the top-level, > which is a release blocker IMO. > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it will imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared libs) and thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we always prefered to bundle them at build time. Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
-1 for the same reason as Dan and Arnaud, though found no regression. Robert Op Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:49:06 +0200 schreef Arnaud Héritier : -1 due to the issue found by Dan about Notice and License files Otherwise I tested it on various projects and found no regressions Cheers On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Stevo Slavić wrote: +1 (non-binding) tested on Apache Mahout trunk Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:16 PM, sebb wrote: > > > On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, > but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > >> > >> Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things > look OK. > >> > >> I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks > OK.There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the > release (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and > /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but those files really are specific > to our scm and thus don't need to be in the source release. > > > > OK, so is it necessary to check the release against the tag? > > That's one way, sure. > > Personally, I log the trunk/master/branch, find the appropriate commit for > "prepare release maven-3.1.1", check that out, then diff that with the src > tar ball as well as diff that with the tag to make sure all three match up. > Likely not necessary with git where the tag would apply directly to that > commit, but with subversion, it is certainly possible that the three don't > match and the diffs make sure to check that.If any of the three diffs > find differences, it's an immediate red-flag for further review and likely > require a -1 on the vote until resolved. > > > Or is that just your personal take on what a reviewer should do? > > A reviewer should do whatever they feel is necessary to do a thorough > review. > > > If it is necessary (for at least one reviewer) to do, then the SCM > > coordinates need to be provided in a transparent manner so any > > reviewer can do it, and the coordinates need to be part of the vote > > e-mail "for the public record". > > No, each reviewer should do what they feel is appropriate for them. If > every reviewer did the exact same thing, we'd get the exact same result > from each of them. Some reviewers may checkout the tag, others may troll > back master, others may do something completely different. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
This should now be fixed on master. Feel free to cancel this vote and respin the builds. Thanks! Dan On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > -1 > > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE > files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely needs > to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, but might tomorrow > if someone doesn't beat me to it. > > Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things look OK. > > I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks OK. > There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the release > (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but > those files really are specific to our scm and thus don't need to be in the > source release. > > Most likely, the doap_Maven.rdf shouldn't be part of the release either. > Probalby shouldn't be in the main maven git repo. Definitely not a big deal. > > Dan > > > > On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved: >> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968 >> >> Staging repo: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/ >> >> The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/ >> >> Specifically the zip, tarball, and source archives can be found here: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.zip >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.tar.gz >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.zip >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.tar.gz >> >> Vote open for 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 >> [ ] +0 >> [ ] -1 >> >> Thanks, >> >> The Maven Team >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote: > >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> > >> > -1 >> > >> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and >> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That >> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, >> but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. >> >> The N&L files should also be present at the top-level of SCM. >> That is not a release-blocker per se, however if they had been there >> they would likely also be in the source archives at the top-level, >> which is a release blocker IMO. >> > > > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it will > imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared libs) and > thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we always > prefered to bundle them at build time. The point is: the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know the what the license conditions are. The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. > Arnaud - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
Right o, thanks. On Sep 12, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > This should now be fixed on master. Feel free to cancel this vote and > respin the builds. > > Thanks! > Dan > > > On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> >> -1 >> >> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and >> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That >> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, >> but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. >> >> Ran a couple builds with the result of building the source and things look >> OK. >> >> I checked the rest of the contents with the tag and everything looks OK. >> There are three files in the git repo that aren't part of the release >> (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), >> but those files really are specific to our scm and thus don't need to be in >> the source release. >> >> Most likely, the doap_Maven.rdf shouldn't be part of the release either. >> Probalby shouldn't be in the main maven git repo. Definitely not a big >> deal. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved: >>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968 >>> >>> Staging repo: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/ >>> >>> The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/ >>> >>> Specifically the zip, tarball, and source archives can be found here: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.zip >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-bin.tar.gz >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.zip >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/apache-maven-3.1.1-src.tar.gz >>> >>> Vote open for 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> The Maven Team >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl -
Re: git commit: Add a LICENSE/NOTICE that can be picked up for the src assembly
On 11 September 2013 21:40, wrote: > Updated Branches: > refs/heads/master 02d124230 -> eb2f2b1ac > > > Add a LICENSE/NOTICE that can be picked up for the src assembly Thanks, that also sorts out the top-level SCM N&L files. > > Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/repo > Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/commit/eb2f2b1a > Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/tree/eb2f2b1a > Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/diff/eb2f2b1a > > Branch: refs/heads/master > Commit: eb2f2b1acdeade6f3e4b2ca5f771ba3a03e3f7b9 > Parents: 02d1242 > Author: Daniel Kulp > Authored: Wed Sep 11 16:39:30 2013 -0400 > Committer: Daniel Kulp > Committed: Wed Sep 11 16:39:30 2013 -0400 > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/blob/eb2f2b1a/NOTICE > -- > diff --git a/NOTICE b/NOTICE > new file mode 100644 > index 000..bb189f8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/NOTICE > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > +Apache Maven > +Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation > + > +This product includes software developed at > +The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > + > + Trivial nit: there's one extra blank line at the end of the file. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
> > The point is: > the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. > That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know > the what the license conditions are. > For the License when you are reading some code hosted on apache.org I think nobody should have a doubt about it. > > The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured > they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the > primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. > > > Arnaud > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- - Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
On 12 September 2013 18:20, Arnaud Héritier wrote: >> >> The point is: >> the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. >> That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know >> the what the license conditions are. >> > > For the License when you are reading some code hosted on apache.org I think > nobody should have a doubt about it. Not all code included in our SCM is necessarily AL-licensed. Obviously it has to be AL-compatible so the project as a whole is AL, but parts can be non-AL. > >> >> The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured >> they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the >> primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. >> >> > Arnaud >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > - > Arnaud Héritier > http://aheritier.net > Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com > Twitter/Skype : aheritier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
2013/9/12 sebb > On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote: > > > >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> > > >> > -1 > >> > > >> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > >> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > >> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into > that, > >> but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > >> > >> The N&L files should also be present at the top-level of SCM. > >> That is not a release-blocker per se, however if they had been there > >> they would likely also be in the source archives at the top-level, > >> which is a release blocker IMO. > >> > > > > > > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it > will > > imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared libs) > and > > thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we always > > prefered to bundle them at build time. > > The point is: > the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. > That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know > the what the license conditions are. > Wasn't it explained that SCM is actually a convenience, and that only the released source tarballs would actually matter here? In this case, Arnaud's point about only adding them at build time is really valid here. > > The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured > they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the > primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. > In the source, but possibly different in many places and having to maintain their sameness, that's again Arnaud's point. As an external observer and a developer, not duplicating files in many places as they should really be the same seem quite a sound PMC choice to me.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Wagon version 2.5
+1 On 12 September 2013 21:29, Tamás Cservenák wrote: > Hi, > > We solved 6 issues: > https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10335&version=19092 > > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: > https://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20WAGON%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC > > Staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-036/ > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-036/org/apache/maven/wagon/wagon/2.5/wagon-2.5-source-release.zip > > Source release checksum: > wagon-2.5-source-release.zip sha1: f0fca0335061d21ca1306298033299c244ea88f1 > > Staging site: > http://maven.apache.org/wagon-archives/wagon-LATEST/ > > Guide to testing staged releases: > http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html > > Vote open for 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 > > > Thanks, > ~t~ -- Olivier Lamy Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
