Fred, We are talking more process here. Not the specifics of an individual SCM, not everything is in git. We are still talking about the abstraction api that the maven-scm handlers provide, of which git is but one.
-Chris On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:42 AM, 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. > > 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] > > > > >
