commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] Release math 2.2 based on RC5
Date Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:48:18 GMT
On 2/26/11 1:08 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 26/02/2011 18:29, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> 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
>>>>> [ ] +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.
> Fine. I just check if I could do a mix by manually creating the site
> using the script as a template and leaving it in the target/site
> directory, then switch to mvn deploy. It seems to work, at least with a
> local test-deploy.
Great, just make sure to document the steps somewhere.  Maybe add a
release-process.txt describing the steps (can be done post-release)
or just modify the script to end with a deploy.
> So I cancel this vote now.
> I will still do an RC6 tag since I have to change the publish target
> dates in changes.xml and doap_math.rdf (and hence the RC number in one
> property of pom.xml also).
> I am really sorry to be so slow in getting this release out and force
> everybody to vote again and again. Next time, I'll try to get it right
> faster.
Hey, nobody is dying here ;)

This last wrinkle was my fault - I just could not find a way to get
the user guide bundled without some scripting and that, together
with an old-fashioned approach to generating the artifacts, is what
led me to create the script for 2.1. 

Thanks for *your* patience!

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

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

View raw message