Hi Mladen, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Mladen Turk wrote: >> >>> On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote: >>>> On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the >>>>> manifest at the first place. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It shows that the build was done from the relevant tag. >>>> >>> >>> mvn -DbuildNumber=1234 -DscmBranch=54678 ... >>> >>> It doesn't show a thing. I can put there whatever I like anyhow. >> >> The build-helper plugin sets the properties automatically gathering the >> info from a checkout. It is not meant to be set manually. >> > > Anyhow, IMO this metadata is useless. > For example my company (and vast majority of other vendors) use source > .tar.gz and produces .jar (and signs it for security purposes) > This is obviously not done using SVN so we always have a UNKNOWN SCM tag > inside manifest. Of course this is usually handled by invoking > mvn -Prelease -Dimplementation.build="`date -R`" ... > > As you can see, makes no sense to have something if its easily overridden, > particularly if someone thinks this is some kind of proof the binaries > were build from some particular branch or tag. Which is a valid assumption using Maven and the build-number plugin, since in Maven it is all about convention. If we simply talk about creating that jar, I can alternatively use simply javac.exe, a text editor of my choice for the manifest and jar.exe to produce it. So the possibility to "overrride" the build process is IMHO not a valid argument. As RM you're absolutely free to cut a release without the build number, but don't expect me any longer to give a positive vote. Just my 2¢. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
