Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7CAD20F-A17B-433F-BE86-AFE166D51689"
Message-Id: <57E0AB78-3085-4131-98D5-4CB71B621D01@tesla.io>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Leaving Maven Core POMs at major.minor-SNAPSHOT
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:07:26 -0400
References: <5B52997E-0ABA-4CDC-8CCC-0C07538E363C@tesla.io>
 <524EA41A.9020506@ifedorenko.com>
To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <524EA41A.9020506@ifedorenko.com>

--Apple-Mail=_D7CAD20F-A17B-433F-BE86-AFE166D51689
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

Good point. I did some experiments with the version:set plugin and I can =
live with the rollback using that. So I reset the poms to =
3.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Problem solved.

On Oct 4, 2013, at 7:18 AM, Igor Fedorenko <igor@ifedorenko.com> wrote:

> Practical question. What should be supported maven version range for =
new
> ITs introduced during 3.1.2 development, [3.1,)? This means we'd need =
to
> tag ITs, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to successfully =
rerun
> ITs for 3.1 and 3.1.1, unless I am mistaken.
>=20
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>=20
> On 2013-09-14 1:24 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> When a release fails like this it is annoying to have to rev back the
>> version of the POM. I'm not sure who flipped the versions in the POM
>> and while it's a little more visible to see what you're moving toward
>> I prefer the pattern of:
>>=20
>> 3.1-SNAPSHOT --> 3.1.1 --> 3.1-SNAPSHOT --> 3.1.2 --> 3.1-SNAPSHOT
>>=20
>> I know this may not be obvious to the casual observer as they may
>> think 3.1 is next, but I'm personally fine with that.
>>=20
>> Especially after a failed release because then I don't have to go
>> change all the POMs (whether rolling back manually, using the release
>> rollback, the version:set command, or whatever else). It's much
>> easier to just fix what's necessary and carry on.
>>=20
>> Unless anyone objects I would like to go back this pattern, what I
>> previously had, because it's far easier to manage. Ideally it might
>> be nice if all the tools understood 3.1.z-SNAPSHOT but they don't an
>> in lieu of that I would prefer not to diddle POMs after a failed
>> release.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>>=20
>> Jason
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van
>> Zyl Founder,  Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>=20

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------


--Apple-Mail=_D7CAD20F-A17B-433F-BE86-AFE166D51689--