incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2016 02:43:28 GMT
I personally have received negative feedback from both colleagues and
management on the use of projects with the name "incubating" in them,
putting them into the same category as alpha or beta software.

When Daniel brought this up on the freemarker list, I did give him my
support in the matter.  I've sent a few emails recently about updating
incubator policies and guides, to fix problems that have been identified.
As far as I'm concerned, what he's asking doesn't require any change - the
use of -incubating in the version # has been a self imposed rule, not a
policy the incubator has requested [1] (note the should).

As far as including it in the group ID, I would expect it to then look like
"org.apache.incubator.podling" but then we are mandating maven coordinates,
which thus far the ASF has not done [2].  I actually prefer the
non-mandated approach, since as you mention, all of the supporting
materials require the disclaimer.

The actual requirement, as I've understood it, is that the release artifact
(the source tarball) includes -incubating.  Not generated maven artifacts
(which are the output of that source tarball).



On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:19 PM Christopher <> wrote:

> I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
> match the IPMC released version identifier.
> If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in the
> groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
> interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would be
> incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with dropping
> the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
> I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present, and
> redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
> it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
> the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
> as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> > coordinates:
> >
> >     <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> >     <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> >     <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
> >
> > The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> > it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> > that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> > years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
> >
> > As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> > "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> > we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> > on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> > (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> > less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> > would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> > downloadable from and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> > anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> > "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> > "FreeMarker").
> >
> > *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> >    will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> >    version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> >    any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> >    believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> >    queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> >    that automatically marks these incubating
> >    versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> >    non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> >    "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> >    also stuck at that version for some reason.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >  Daniel Dekany
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >

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