> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 31 May 2013 10:29 > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should we respin CANCELLED releases with the same > version number? > > On 31 May 2013 10:22, James Nord (jnord) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This discussion about respins is really strange to me. I've been > > > cutting releases, with Maven, at Apache, for years now. And all of > > > them have > > reused > > > version numbers for respins. And all of them have carefully used > > > staging technology (old: directories, new: Nexus) to ensure that > > > artifacts don't escape to the wild until they pass the vote. > > > > But they have to be in the wild in order to test (especially plugins). > > > > This adds a barrier to test for external people in a corporate > > environment, and can cause mishaps if one library delivered with a > > plugin is not cleaned up correctly from a MRM, causing the old failed > > version to be served up to clients. > > > > Basically IMHO reusing version numbers violates maven rule #1 releases > > never change. > > > > Personally I wouldn't care if 3.3.0 is called 3.3.0-7 or 3.3.0-24 so > > long as it is the official "3.3.0". > > > > After all isn't this what the buildnumber is for? > > > > +1 no reusing version numbers (non binding) (but I am against > > +skipping > > x.y.z versions - e.g. there should not be a gap from 3.2.12 to 3.3.6 ) > > > > Can you please explain that last bit? > > If there is an API change (backwards compatible) that necessitates the next > version after 3.2.12 have a minor version incremented and then it turns out > that it takes another 7 tries to get a viable release out the door then that > means that the released versions you would see (with no re-using) would be > 3.2.12 and then 3.3.6. If you allow for reusing, you would get > 3.2.12 followed by 3.3.0... perhaps you could explain what you are exactly > against and how such a situation could arrise?
So what I am for is the following (example) (which does not re-use version numbers): So we have 3.2.12 (released as you currently do). New breaking API is encountered So you up the minor version - and create a "RC" release That version is 3.3.0-1 (the buildnumber is important) That fails due to some license not being present, so you release the next version 3.3.0-2 ... 3.3.0-3 ... 3.3.0-7 This passes the vote and the announce about apache maven 3.3.0 available for download goes onto the website and links to 3.3.0-7 After release some bugs are found, Next version is 3.3.1-nnn What I am against is the following (which **also** does not re-use version numbers): So we have 3.2.12 (released as you currently do). New breaking API is encountered So you up the minor version - and create a "RC" release That version is 3.3.0 That fails due to some license not being present, so you release the next version 3.3.1 ... 3.3.3 ... 3.3.7 This passes the vote and the announce about apache maven 3.3.7 available for download goes onto the website (but there is no mention of 3.3.6 or any other prior 3.3.x) So I would not want to see (in "released version") 3.2.12 -> 3.3.7 -> 3.3.16 -> 3.4.7 Hope that makes it clearer. /James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
