commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release math 2.2 based on RC5
Date Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:29:36 GMT
On 2/26/11 11:47 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 26/02/2011 17:11, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/25/11 5:15 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Tag:
>>> <>
>>> All artifacts in Nexus staging repository:
>>> <>
>>> site:
>>> <>
>>> Clirr report:
>>> <>
>>> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 2011-02-28T11:00:00 UTC
>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>> [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>>> Thanks!
>>> Luc
>> I am struggling a little on this one.  The code is good.  Builds and
>> tests fine. Sigs are good.  Release contents are good.  But the user
>> guide packaging is not as good as 2.0-2.1, IMO.  The reason that I
>> introduced the siteMods stuff in 2.0 was so that we could bundle
>> just the user guide as a self-contained set of web pages in the
>> binary distro.  Just file filtering from a full site build results
>> in broken links in the nav and the appearance of the whole site,
>> with only the user guide content available.  On the other hand, to
>> fix this, you need to do what the build script does or something
>> similar (at least I couldn't find a way to get it to work
>> otherwise), which means you can't just have maven build and deploy
>> the whole release without additional scripting or commands.  The nav
>> links in the user guide into the user guide itself work and the
>> links from the user guide to the bundled javadoc work, so this is
>> really just an appearance/useability issue.
>> So I guess I am +0 on this RC.  The broken links / appearance issues
>> are not enough for -1, or even -0, but I would rather ship the
>> cleaner version.  I don't know how nexus works, but I would expect
>> that it should be possible to generate just the binary distro and
>> push it out there somehow if you decide to do another RC.
> OK. Perhaps I could try what Sebb suggested: using the siteMods/pom.xml
> and siteMods/site.xml stuff directly from maven. I could even do the
> site manually with your script and later use mvn deploy.
> I will give it a try first without cancelling this RC vote. If I succeed
> in having a fully functional menu with only the required links, then
> I'll cancel the vote and push an RC6.
If you just run the script, it will create the correctly bundled
user guide.  The previous RCs had it fine.  You could then just push
out the binary zip/tgz.  I almost suggested that you just do that
and restart the VOTE, since no changes to the tag are necessary to
fix this.  IIUC, Sebb's suggestion just simplifies the script.  You
still need to execute "mvn site" separately using the modified
resources to get the user guide built.
> What should we do about the duplicate javadoc in binary ? Do we keep
> both the jar and the expanded version in the binary zip or do we
> suppress one of them ? If we suppress one, which one ?

I am not one of them, but some users seem to like to have both
source and javadoc jars included in the binary distributions.  I am
not sure why, but I think it has to do with IDE integration.  It
doesn't bother me personally to include these jars.  It *would*
bother me not to have apidocs in the distro itself, though.


> Luc
>> Phil
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message