shale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: Test 1.0.3 Artifacts (Round 2)
Date Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:01:26 GMT
On 8/18/06, Wendy Smoak <> wrote:
> On 8/18/06, Craig McClanahan <> wrote:
> > WARNING:  If you have previously installed 1.0.3 artifacts from the
> earlier
> > test build evaluation into your local repository, you will need to
> manually
> > replace them, because these are not SNAPSHOT version numbers.
> A non-SNAPSHOT version should be built exactly once if at all
> possible.  Once it's in a repository, for all intents and purposes it
> *is* released and should not be changed. [1]  Next time around let's
> just evaluate the -SNAPSHOT version until it's ready to tag and
> release.

Isn't that why we have a test repository for snapshots?  Otherwise, you'd
only get one shot at publishing any particular version number, and we'd end
up with lots of holes in the sequence of version numbers ever actually

The problem with evaluating the snapshots is we're trusting that nothing
goes wrong with the real build process after version numbers are updated in
the POMs.  I would prefer to see our release votes be about "these are the
exact bits that I want to push to the dist directory, and to ibiblio".  We
definitely don't want to be pushing test artifacts with non-SNAPSHOT
versions as a normal course of action, but in the roll-up to a release it
seems like the only way to do it.

> (2) Releaseable .tar.gz and .zip artifacts
> Do we need both?  I think .zip is sufficient.

Works for me.  I like tar.gz better when I've got executables included, or
when I want to maintain file permissions ... but neither of those tend to be
an issue for our distros.

> KNOWN ISSUE:  The version number (1.0.3) is not included in the top level
> > directory of the "war" distributions.  Need to figure out how to not do
> > this, without disabling the generation of webapps that don't require
> version
> > numbers in the context path.
> I'll look at it tomorrow afternoon, but I suspect renaming the files
> will be the easiest solution for 1.0.3.

I can live with that for this version.

> KNOWN ISSUE:  The "-dist" suffix on all of the above distibutions is
> > somewhat useless.  We can rename the files, but it would be better to
> > identify a way to make the assembly instructions do what we want in the
> > first place.
> The latest version of the assembly plugin has an option for this.  It
> would require changing the assembly descriptors to the new format, and
> I haven't been able to get it to do what I want.

We can live with it for this time.

Another issue: The portlet-api jar is included in WEB-INF/lib of
> shale-blank.  I didn't check the others.

It's in all of them.  I'll need to mark it as provided, like we did for
servlet and jsp api stuff.

  Also, LICENSE and NOTICE are
> in WEB-INF/classes.  META-INF is probably more appropriate, as with
> the jars.

Yep ... I'll make a pass through the same sort of changes as for the

[1]  (Yes, I know I just rebuilt Struts 1.3.5, but at least nothing
> had changed in svn since the original.)


> Wendy


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message