On 4/1/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's almost like we need a two-phase commit here. We do some stuff
> > > and then ask everyone "are you okay with that?" What if we staged our
> > > release
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's almost like we need a two-phase commit here. We do some stuff
> > and then ask everyone "are you okay with that?" What if we staged our
> > releases to an SVN working copy? Then, everyone could look at it and
On 3/27/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:33 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > On 27/03/2008, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On 3/27/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:33 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It should be obvious that code uploaded to a personal user directory
> > has not been formally released.
> >
> > If a shared repository is used then this is less obvious
On 3/27/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/22/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008
On 3/25/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think someone needs to turn this thread into a document so it does
> > > not get lost ...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:33 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2008, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/22/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 200
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:33 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It should be obvious that code uploaded to a personal user directory
> has not been formally released.
>
> If a shared repository is used then this is less obvious, and there is
> a risk that users will assume that it is a relea
On 27/03/2008, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/22/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
On 25/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I think someone needs to turn this thread into a document so it does
> > not get lost ...
> >
>
>
>
> Sorry, I meant to elaborate when Phil mentioned documenting this as
> well
As a somewhat new topic, but seems reasonable in the same thread, I'm
interested in eliminating the dichotomy of using m2 to release poms
vs. components. We discussed we'll start staging skins, this will mean
extending that to poms.
Operationally, this will mean that the process (and m2 commands)
On 3/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think someone needs to turn this thread into a document so it does
> not get lost ...
>
Sorry, I meant to elaborate when Phil mentioned documenting this as
well. The intent is to proceed in 3 steps:
* Discuss (this thread, will let it sit for a
On 24/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/23/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:07 AM, James Carman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Right. I woul
On 3/23/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:07 AM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Right. I would not put the to-be-voted-on candidate there, just the
> > > RCs le
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:07 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Right. I would not put the to-be-voted-on candidate there, just the
> > RCs leading up the the final, all of which have "RC" in their version
>
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. I would not put the to-be-voted-on candidate there, just the
> RCs leading up the the final, all of which have "RC" in their version
> specs.
>From what I understand, we're not supposed to cut release candidates
w
> > I don't see why it should be "illegal" to publish an RC to the
> > snapshot repo. We do not distinguish "stable", "ga", "beta" etc here
> > in Commons. We have releases and things that are not yet released. I
> > don't see why we need yet another repo for RCs. We - at least I -
> >
On 3/22/08, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 3) Announce availability of RC, publish RC-labeled jar to snapshot
> > > repo an
On 3/22/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Keeping things at the "vision" level, what I like to do is
> >
> > 1) Once release plan is complete, create an RC tag
> > 2) Build an RC, consisting of
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3) Announce availability of RC, publish RC-labeled jar to snapshot
> > repo and tarballs to ~psteitz
>
> In order for (5) to be automated with
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Announce availability of RC, publish RC-labeled jar to snapshot
> repo and tarballs to ~psteitz
In order for (5) to be automated with the stage plugin, you would need
to stage each release in a separate repository. I
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, thanks for helping move this along, Rahul. We need to at least
> get the "releasing" docs updated.
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on couple of JIRA comments
On 22/03/2008, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, thanks for helping move this along, Rahul. We need to at least
> get the "releasing" docs updated.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on couple of JIRA comments, it seems there
First, thanks for helping move this along, Rahul. We need to at least
get the "releasing" docs updated.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on couple of JIRA comments, it seems there still isn't consensus
> about a release process using m2 at Commons
On 3/22/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I haven't read all the text below, and I refuse to do so, until we can
> reach an agreement on a "vision" level.
>
FWIW, I think we are doing OK at that level. Atleast enough to make
progress on COMMONSSITE-{26,27}, which is my short t
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (b)
> maven-release-plugin checks that there are no SNAPSHOT versions in the
> pom.
>
> But isn't
> grep "SNAPSHOT" pom.xml
> simple enough? [1]
>
>
Perhaps we could use the enforcer plugin once it gets all the kinks
out?
What happened to the "vision" level that Rahul requested that we stay on?
This happens *every* time we get into discussions about the build or
release process. Instead of focusing on what we can agree upon people
start going into the nitty gritty details saying: I *don't* like this or
that det
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
Or co
On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 18:18 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> James Carman wrote:
> > On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
> >> sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
> >> alw
On 3/21/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
> > sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
> > always use the release plugin. Tha
On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
> sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
> always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
>
Or consistently not usi
James Carman wrote:
On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
Should s
On 3/21/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
> sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
> always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
>
> Should something be wr
If I raise my view and just look at the A, B, C and D headings, it
sounds good. But, there shouldn't be two options under B. IMO we should
always use the release plugin. That will give us consistent releases.
Should something be wrong with the release-plugin we'll be consistently
wrong :-) But
Based on couple of JIRA comments, it seems there still isn't consensus
about a release process using m2 at Commons. I'll try to outline the
process.
[A] Release prep
[B] Stage artifacts and site, to some location TBD (entire commands
below, not abridged etc.):
mvn -Prc release:prepare
mvn -Prc
36 matches
Mail list logo
