maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0-alpha-1
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 08:17:28 GMT
2013/5/29 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>:
> On 29 May 2013 06:49, jieryn <jieryn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>
>> wrote:
>> > I'd like to work on Arnaud's idea of error message enhancement in case a
>> > plugin fails because of unavailable Sonatype Aether: if you can let me
>> 12 more
>> > hours from now, I'll do it tonight
>>
>> Version numbers are cheap. Can't we just make an alpha-2?
>>
>> I'm just a user, but I'm getting pretty sick of staged alpha releases
>> being dropped.
>>
>> This happened with 3.0.5 as well. Just release it already. They are
>> alphas. Christ.
>>
>
> Well for the NOTICE.txt issue, we cannot actually make a release for legal
> reasons without
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commitdiff;h=b0a83f62
> being
> part of the release.
>
> The question is whether it is better to have the first 3.1.0 alpha release
> be called 3.1.0-alpha-4 or 3.1.0-alpha-1
>
> When people come back and look at the git history, they will see the
> commits with "[maven-release] Prepare 3.1.0-alpha-1" through to
> "[maven-release] Prepare 3.1.0-alpha-4" but only see the tag for
> maven-3.1.0-alpha-4 and they might incorrectly assume that somebody just
> forgot to push the tag (similarly they could undelete the SVN tag, so this
> is not a GIT thing) and then you could end up with a situation where the
> ASF is sued for making a release of Maven without attributing the Eclipse
> foundation correctly...
>
> Yes, I know that specific example is unlikely, but the point is that there
> is potential for that type of thing... and we have the mailing lists as a
> record, etc.
>
> Jenkins 1.453's borked partial release was enough to convince me that
> dropping the staging repo and respining with the same version number is
> probably the lesser evil.... though that might be because I had to go and
> do some workarounds for some automated analysis and other fancy shit I was
> doing.
>
> I guess my point is that 3 months later I had to go digging and it took
> quite some time to find out that Jenkins 1.453 was actually a failed
> partial release and while there were artifacts for jenkins-core published,
> there were none for jenkins-war.
>
> Prior to 1.453 I would have been agreeing with KK's assertion that the ASF
> version reuse was just madness.
>
> But having said all that, if we can find a good way to flag versions as not
> released (e.g. a release history page or something) I am not against
> skipping version numbers. Might confuse people though if that meant that
> the first release of Maven 3.1.0 was 3.1.4 (i.e. if we had not been doing
> alpha's)

it's just consuming a tag for "nothing" and not having an official
Apache release for this tag (not publishing sources or binaries)
Where is the issue ? some projects like httpd or tomcat do that.


>
>
>> -Jesse
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>



--
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message