shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Closed: (SHIRO-102) Set-up AutoExport of Shiro documentation to the appropriate location
Date Thu, 20 May 2010 06:02:31 GMT
Missed that, thanks for digging it out. "should" is perhaps a little
vague, but I guess it makes most sense to keep it as part of version
coordinate. We'll go with that.

Kalle


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org> wrote:
> Oops.  This states it is a required policy to have the '-incubating'
> in the name:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org> wrote:
>> I don't know if it is a hard requirement.  I don't *think* so, but I
>> could be wrong.
>>
>> You could always create the artifacts without the suffix and see if
>> the Mentors and then Incubator PMC approves them.  Coupled with clear
>> notes about the incubating status, it may fly.
>>
>> +1 to not having it in the actual artifact name but make it clear as
>> day on the website and in the release notes.
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>> But if you feel strongly about it, I can create the branch right away.
>>>> Nope - no strong opinions.  I can wait.  I was just looking at the
>>>> 1.0.1 Jira issues, and 2 of them actually look like non-backwards
>>>> compatible changes and would have to be moved to 1.1.  I was thinking
>>>> that if anyone wanted to do that stuff anytime soon, they'd probably
>>>> need to have a 1.0.x branch made so they can do the 1.1 development in
>>>> the trunk. But I don't think I'm going to attack these immediately, so
>>>> I can certainly wait :)
>>>
>>> Well, in that case. Of course the coin side of it is that if we get
>>> the 1.1 out before any critical issues arise we don't necessarily ever
>>> have to come up with 1.0.1. I'll create the branch before I start the
>>> release process tomorrow morning. I just ran the release dryRun and
>>> although there's a few fixes I still need to make, I have some faith
>>> in the current pom configuration and hopefully won't need to make too
>>> many final adjustments to the poms.
>>>
>>> One more: the current version carries the -incubating label in the
>>> version - do you know if it's a requirement or can we simply release
>>> 1.0.0? It was my understanding from the discussions that it's the same
>>> as with RCs - they are not needed as part of the version but the
>>> incubation status can simply be acknowledged in the release notes. And
>>> actually, I do remember that at least CXF used plain version digits
>>> while they were still in incubator.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message