Nice solution, +1. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Nord (jnord) <[email protected]>wrote:
> > -----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] > >
