commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [logging] Are we ready for 1.1.1?
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:51:55 GMT
On 12/19/06, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible@elsag-solutions.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> simon.kitching@xtra.co.nz wrote on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:27 PM:
>
> > ---- Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
> >> On 12/19/06, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've looked through the list of unscheduled issues [1] and can't
> >>> find anything that need to go into a 1.1.1 release.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any fetaures or bugfixes waiting.
> >
> >>
> >> How are we going to create the release?
> >>> 1. Ant
> >>> 2. Maven 1
> >>> 3. Maven 2
> >>>
> >>> Or some combination of them? My guess is to use Ant for the
> >>> source/binaries distros and Maven 1 for the site.
> >
> > My preference would be to build using maven2, with -source
> > and -target set to 1.2 and 1.1 respectively (using a JVM >=
> > 1.4 of course, as that's what maven needs). To check 1.2
> > compatibility, we could then run just the integration tests
> > as a separate step using java 1.2.
> >
> > However this would require that:
> > (a) "mvn site" works. Currently this generates odd errors I
> > don't understand
>
> You might still use M1 to generatge the site though. Just configure the release plugin
of M2 to run only "deploy" instead of "deploy, site-deploy" as long as site generation does
not work with M2.
>
> > (b) there is an obvious way of setting -source and -target
> > values, so they default to 1.2/1.1 but users can override.
> > I'm sure there is, but I don't know what it is.
> > (c) the itest target supports running tests using an external JVM
> >
> > Using a single build tool to produce a release is much easier
> > than using ant to build the code and maven1 to build the
> > site, then stitching the results together.
>
> Well, since M2 is not yet up to date with M1 building the site, catch 22 ;-)
>
> >> My understanding is that "Maven 1 for the site" is required to get
> >> the current Commons L&F.  I don't have an opinion on which is the
> >> best to actually make the binaries of the release.
> >
> > As noted above, it would be great if we could get the site
> > building using maven2.
>
> Yeah. Definitely.
>
> >> Is there anything else that needs to be done, besides the
> > normal release
> >>> cycle?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we're set.
> >
> > I'd like to see a reasonable time for users to assess a
> > release candidate. Getting the nightlies working would be a
> > good first step; currently nightlies for logging uses
> > maven1.x, which means that ONLY the site is actually being
> > built nightly..
>
> A working nightly M2 build would be really great.
>
> - Jörg

Easy enough - move logging from the nightly m1 txt file to the m2 txt file.

Multiple types of builds is a way off I suspect.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message