incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2017 14:22:52 GMT
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:36 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> > So, instead of tying the "incubating" marker to "incubating", I would
favor
> > a system of marker(s) indicating the code maturity (incl legal). So,
for a
> > podling release to be 1.2.3 (a la Groovy), the same release standard as
> > TLPs are applied, but allow "alpha", "rc" or similar markers for
podlings
> > to "practice" releases. Probably not pushing those to mirrors, but
> > otherwise identical in "process" for podling to get their grips on the
> > release process.
> >

> I think this is a fair point, and probably close to what podling
> communities do (when its a fairly new codebase).  We often see releases in
> the 0.x line, and in the 1+ lines.  Its up to the podling to determine how
> mature they are from a release numbering standpoint.  I wouldn't want the
> IPMC to enforce a versioning scheme.
> It does however seem like a foundation wide versioning scheme may make
> sense, or at least references to common references, e.g. semver, may make
> sense as a recommendation to new podlings.

Yeah, this is a tricky question. On one hand I don't like to dictate, but
as a user I like to have a unified view of the world. Perhaps one or two
DOAP entries would be a good way, and more strongly promote the DOAP and
over time our common tooling could provide the unified view. A bit of "be a
good citizen.... for your own sake" attitude.


Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java

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