here is sample pom.xml to reproduce the issue. 3.0.3 generate the correct lib dir, and script, but not 3.0.4
<project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0"; xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd";> <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> <groupId>my.groupId</groupId> <artifactId>myArtifactId</artifactId> <version>1-SNAPSHOT</version> <packaging>jar</packaging> <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>commons-cli</groupId> <artifactId>commons-cli</artifactId> <version>1.3-SNAPSHOT</version> </dependency> </dependencies> <build> <plugins> <plugin> <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId> <artifactId>appassembler-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>1.1.1</version> <executions> <execution> <id>generate-setup-scripts</id> <phase>prepare-package</phase> <goals> <goal>assemble</goal> </goals> <configuration> <repositoryLayout>flat</repositoryLayout> <generateRepository>true</generateRepository> <repositoryName>lib</repositoryName> <programs> <program> <mainClass>fake.Main</mainClass> <name>setup</name> </program> </programs> <platforms> <platform>unix</platform> </platforms> </configuration> </execution> </executions> </plugin> </plugins> </build> </project> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote: > The RCs were started for a very specific reason, to improve the > quality of our releases. Just breezing through this thread, there are > clearly issues with memory and some other stuff here that may be > bigger than we understand in this small testing surface. An RC build > will get more eyes and either confirm these aren't a big deal, or they > are. > > Reminder of where we were with 2.0.7, 2.0.8 and why we do RCs: > http://www.sonatype.com/people/2008/04/quality-is-not-accidental/ > > I'm -1 on a release without some RCs. > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:17 PM, John Casey <jdca...@commonjava.org> wrote: >> On 12/1/11 10:27 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: >>> >>> 2011/12/1 Jörg Schaible<joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>: >>>> >>>> Benjamin Bentmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Olivier Lamy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to release Apache Maven 3.0.4 (take 2). >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> Note the difference with first vote is an upgrade of aether to 1.13.1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What about the memory issue that Jörg brought up? Shouldn't we at least >>>>> understand the cause and potential impact on other users before >>>>> continuing the release? >>>> >>>> >>>> Continue, I'll report later, but it seems that there's no regression in >>>> 304 >>>> vs 303. >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> @Benjamin: I tend to say we must release it (maybe the famous "early >>> and often' :-) ). >> >> >> Early-and-often is great, but it's not an excuse to be lax on quality >> standards. Hudson had some famously horrible releases early on, and I >> suspect they had to do with sacrificing concerns about quality on the altar >> of early-and-often. >> >> An RC would take less than a week more if the code really is ready to go. If >> it's not, then we don't want to release it, do we? >> >> >>> My goal is to provide a release point (stable tagged build) to get >>> feedbacks. >>> Trying to reach/wait the "perfect release" without those feedbacks is >>> IMHO impossible. >> >> >> Actually it's not; the feedback comes by way of RCs. This is why it's so >> important to do RCs for Maven core. Maybe we can skip the RC process on >> plugins (I tend to think a single, quick RC is still a good idea there), but >> the core is far, far more complex. Even with a huge IT set we cannot hope to >> cover all use cases there, so it's simply not enough. >> >> If Jörg's issue doesn't pop up in this staged release, then I'd say let's >> just learn that lesson for next time. It takes a little longer using RCs, >> but it's the ONLY way we've been able to produce releases that weren't >> riddled with regressions in the past. Even with a strong IT suite, it's >> still good practice. >> >> As an aside, we might as well call this staging of 3.0.4 a RC and discuss it >> here as if it was. The main difference is procedural IMO, in that this is a >> [VOTE] thread, not a [DISCUSS] thread about whether the staged RC is ready >> to go. IMO that's an important distinction, since the 72h time limit is >> lurking nearby, but we'd still want to time-box the review of any RC >> >> >>> The previous "issue" for ngnix users was blocker as some oss forge use >>> it. So I cancel it and restart one (and thanks for the fast aether >>> change). >>> But for such memory issue at least users can change MAVEN_OPTS. >>> My email [1] to Jörg describe various things to test on his private >>> company build (I hope he will have time to provide such feedbacks with >>> a stable maven build) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jörg >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> John Casey >> Developer, PMC Chair - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) >> Blog: http://www.johnofalltrades.name/ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
