Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1) - rc1 is dead

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Here's my 0.02 c.

The process is owrking well as (I think it was Rakesh) that  
identified something odd about the binaries.  We should not have both  
artifacts (2.0-M4 and 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT) in the binaries.

As release manager I am not comfortable releasing these and I'm  
concerned about where they got picked up and will investigate this.

I will work today to spin up a corrected set of binaries that  
addresses the issues we've been discussing (buildability, etc.)

I have to say that every release is a learning experience.  So, for  
my part doing this once a month has been useful as it flushes out a  
new set of issues.  Geronimo is so dependent on external projects  
that we are in a unique (and difficult) position from a release  
standpoint as our dependent projects do not release in a coordinated  
fashion.

I have a check list of how to build and am augmenting it with a list  
of things to look for...something new every time :)

Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1) - rc1 is dead

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

So moving forward is reproducibility of our milestone builds always  
going to be an issue?  I think this is pretty ridiculous that this is  
such a painful process and I understand Matt's frustration.

Does any one know if Maven is using us as a case-study and working  
toward addressing some of our major concerns? If not, do we look  
toward another build solution in the future?

-sachin


On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Here's my 0.02 c.
>
> The process is owrking well as (I think it was Rakesh) that  
> identified something odd about the binaries.  We should not have  
> both artifacts (2.0-M4 and 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT) in the binaries.
>
> As release manager I am not comfortable releasing these and I'm  
> concerned about where they got picked up and will investigate this.
>
> I will work today to spin up a corrected set of binaries that  
> addresses the issues we've been discussing (buildability, etc.)
>
> I have to say that every release is a learning experience.  So, for  
> my part doing this once a month has been useful as it flushes out a  
> new set of issues.  Geronimo is so dependent on external projects  
> that we are in a unique (and difficult) position from a release  
> standpoint as our dependent projects do not release in a  
> coordinated fashion.
>
> I have a check list of how to build and am augmenting it with a  
> list of things to look for...something new every time :)