ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Lalevée <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.4.0 Release - take 2
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:57:53 GMT
I have signed the tag:
See;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0 <;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.4.0>

I’ve also build the updatesite ready to be published:

And I’ve pushed the jars to the Nexus staging repository:

So I think we’re good. For now we have one -1 and three +1 (including me).

I’ll keep the vote open a couple of days, to be sure everyone had the time to vote. And
I’ll promote the artifacts.


> Le 17 déc. 2014 à 14:25, Nicolas Lalevée <> a écrit
>> Le 17 déc. 2014 à 04:09, Antoine Levy Lambert <> a écrit :
>> Nicolas, Jean-Louis, what are your thoughts ?
>> The problem reported by Stefan with the ivy.xml in the source archive must be caused
by something in the build process replacing the ivy.xml of the source tree with an expanded
version of the same file generated when the <ivy:publish/> task runs ?
> The purpose of this change is that it fixes the dependencies of Ivy. I see no particular
harm here.
> But as Stefan, generally speaking, I prefer the source release to be an extract of the
source repository. So there is no possible confusion.
>> I guess a minor edit in the build file to make this modified version of ivy.xml go
somewhere under the build folder should address this issue for this release and the next ones.
>> I have not spent myself a lot of time on ivy yet but I would like to spend some in
2015 - or maybe even next week if my kids are busy out of the house …
>> I also know how it feels when one creates a release candidate and some minor problems
are found and one has to again go through 20 steps in a ReleaseInstructions document …
> Actually releasing Ivy is quite straight forward, no issues with that.
> See: <>
> Probably the signing of the artifacts can be more automatic. I have seen there is ant
target for that but I haven’t tested it yet.
> What trouble me more is what is the exact process to push artifacts into Maven repo after
the release. And we’ll need to figure out how to push it into the Eclipse updatesite too.
>> But I am sure we will get there finally.
> I am sure too. We have to either be patient or actively act on it, depending on our available
>> On Dec 14, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:
>>> We should be using signed tags (git tag -s or -u) rather than
>>> lightweight tags for releases.  I know we haven't cut any releases from
>>> git so far, so we'll be learning as we go along.
> I do not know how it works, but I’ll figure it out. And update the release documentation.
> Nicolas

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