On 5/21/07, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi AllFor the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org for review. After the vote, we renamed the files from -RC4- to -FINAL-, tweaked the filenames inside the .md5 files, and copied into /dist/. Two snags though: * we had to re-generate the maven pom, and re-sign it, as that holds the release version in it, which changed * we forgot that the .tar.gz and .zip files all have poi-3.0-rc4 as their base directory name, since the directory name is generated dynamically in build.xml What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats for voting, or something else?
Don't your jars contain the version number too? The most recent release types I've done are the type where you create the exact release and put it in your ~login where it's voted on. I like this because it makes the actual release extremely easy. The biggest downsides are a) someone might be idiotic and use a random jar from a ~login and b) if you have the release date in there somewhere you have to use the day the vote ends. I don't like the Tomcat/Struts/HTTP Server style of bumping the version each time, but only really because they abuse their numbering schemes. ie) 1.3.5, 1.3.8 etc rather than 1.3.5build1, 1.3.5build4. The general principle is sound and if your community can do the testing to be able to decide on a GA, then it's good. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
