On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fred Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: >> from my experience, even if this question is not absolutely scm-specific, >> git >> brings us a new problem we didn't have with svn: once a tag is set on the >> canonical repo and replicated on developers' repos, it is not automatically >> updated if updated in the canonical >> > > Git brings you no such "problem", it simply exposes your extremely poor > practices... A tag should, and in any sane place is, permanent and > irrevocable. > > On another note, the veto by -1 vote mechanism is a great idea for a > release, but a terrible idea for a principle like this. For a release it > requires a justification, for this it's just "my opinion" overriding one of > Maven's core principals.
Fred, Who says that anyone has a veto? As a principle of Apache, very few things are subject to veto, and I can't see how this would be one. If there's a clear majority of opinion in favor of burning versions, we'll start burning versions. I voted -1. I'll live with whatever outcome, but I'd live more happily with a more elaborated description of the resulting procedure. Like, where and how do we document these never-born releases, etc, etc. --benson > > Stagnation wins. > > Fred. > > >> >> but I may miss some git-fu once again... >> >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> Le samedi 1 juin 2013 20:47:36 Chris Graham a écrit : >> > >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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
