Please stop addressing me. I'm done with this thread. The futility is killing me. I've *MUCH* better things to do with my time. I'm 110% certain that 101% of you will be pleased by this. Win win.
Fred. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Chris Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred, you're the one who mentioned git in that post. > > Please remember what stephen pointed out (which I thought was rather nicely > worded): [paraphrased] > > The real release is the source bundle, and the tags are > merely a convienance to a developer. > > -Chris > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Fred Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Although I prefer to use Git, it's totally irrelevant. I'm unsure how you > > came to the conclusion that I thought this was anything to do with Git. > > Subversion tags, though mutable, should not EVER be committed against or > in > > any other way modified. Doing so is the behaviour of a (bad quality) grad > > student, not a software development professional! > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Chris Graham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
