Benson, read the rules: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/voting.html
"*-1 *No, I *veto* this action." +1 + -1 != 0 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>wrote: > 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] > >
