>but as I see, there seems to be a consensus around a 2-sided rule: >- don't reuse version number for pre-releases (RC, etc) >- reuse version number for actual releases
Not sure how I feel about that. alpha/beta/RCx etc, they are all still valid version nos, so I think that the no re-spin rule should still apply in the same manner. -Chris On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > yes, the vote for one unique rule is clearly "-1" > > but as I see, there seems to be a consensus around a 2-sided rule: > - don't reuse version number for pre-releases (RC, etc) > - reuse version number for actual releases > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le samedi 1 juin 2013 08:27:38 Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > I will need to recheck the tally, but I think the result is -3 > > > > So looks like we will be reusing version numbers on respins > > > > On Wednesday, 29 May 2013, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > We have been using a policy of only making releases without skipping > > > version numbers, e.g. > > > > > > 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 3.0.5, etc > > > > > > Whereby if there is something wrong with the artifacts staged for > release, > > > we drop the staging repo, delete the tag, roll back the version, and > run > > > again. > > > > > > This vote is to change the policy to: > > > > > > drop the staging repo, document the release as not released, and run > with > > > the next version. > > > > > > Under this new proposal, if the staged artifacts for 3.1.0 fail to meet > > > the release criteria, then the artifacts would be dropped from the > staging > > > repository and never see the light of day. The tag would remain in SCM, > > > and > > > we would document (somewhere) that the release was cancelled. The > "respin" > > > would have version number 3.1.1 and there would never be a 3.1.0. > > > > > > This change could mean that the first actual release of 3.1.x might > end up > > > being 3.1.67 (though I personally view that as unlikely, and in the > > > context > > > of 3.1.x I think we are very nearly there) > > > > > > Please Note: > > > > http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/maven-project-release-procedure > > > .html#Check_the_vote_resultsdoes not actually specify what it means by > > > "the process will need to be restarted" so this vote will effect a > change > > > either outcome > > > > > > +1: Never respin with the same version number, always increment the > > > version for a respin > > > 0: Don't care > > > -1: Always respin with the same version number until that version > number > > > gets released > > > > > > This vote will be open for 72 hours. A Majority of PMC votes greater > that > > > 3 will be deemed as decisive in either direction (i.e. if the sum is < > -3 > > > or > +3 then there is a documented result) > > > > > > For any releases in progress at this point in time, it is up to the > > > release manager to decide what to do if they need to do a respin. > > > > > > -Stephen >
