And btw. even SNAPSHOTs are nowadays deployed with a timestamp and so more
easily identifiable. I like James approach x.y.z-candidate but would be
happy with steps in z as well.
Regards Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Jun 1, 2013 8:44 AM, "Mirko Friedenhagen"
wrote:
> On May 31, 2013 12:08 PM,
On May 31, 2013 12:08 PM, "Stephen Connolly" <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes 3.1.0-alpha-1 has had/will have at least four respins... primarily
> because the volunteers have been slow stepping up and testing...
And something not voted on, but with different logger implementations
If one was to push this out for Jenkins to pick them - then this puts a cobwash on the other thread of reusing version numbers IMHO.If you're going to let alpha-1 bleed out to the greater internet, IT IS RELEASED :)IMHO. --Mark DerricuttSent with AirmailOn 31 May 2013 at 11:18:52 PM, Stephen Connol
On 31 May 2013 12:01, jieryn wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY
> wrote:
> > I don't know what you mean by "send pull requests to Jenkins", if you're
> > talking about Apache's Jenkins instance or something more general from
> the
> > Jenkins project
>
> There
> So what I am for is the following (example) (which does not re-use version
> numbers):
>
> So we have 3.2.12 (released as you currently do).
> New breaking API is encountered
> So you up the minor version - and create a "RC" release
> That version is 3.3.0-1 (the buildnumber is important)
> That
Greetings,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by "send pull requests to Jenkins", if you're
> talking about Apache's Jenkins instance or something more general from the
> Jenkins project
There is something called the backend-crawler which locates c
On 31 May 2013 10:41, James Nord (jnord) wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 31 May 2013 10:29
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should we respin CANCELLED releases with the same
> > version number
Hi James,
What you're talking about here is semantic versioning, and I think that it
a totally different discussion to what we are talking about here.
You've used the example of licencing being wrong. Which should have been
caught, but we are all (mostly) human. :-)
I see this as no different to
Nice solution, +1.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:41 AM, James Nord (jnord) wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 31 May 2013 10:29
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should we respin CANCELLED releases w
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 31 May 2013 10:29
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Should we respin CANCELLED releases with the same
> version number?
>
> On 31 May 2013 10:22, James Nord (jnord) wrote:
>
> >
As pointed out by Benson, the whole skipping thing *should* be a non-issue
anyway. If doing a release you should already know that it's good enough.
You should already have tested it thoroughly on your own OSes. You should
have already requested other devs to build from a hash/buildnumber and
verif
On 31 May 2013 10:22, James Nord (jnord) wrote:
> > This discussion about respins is really strange to me. I've been cutting
> > releases, with Maven, at Apache, for years now. And all of them have
> reused
> > version numbers for respins. And all of them have carefully used staging
> > technolog
> This discussion about respins is really strange to me. I've been cutting
> releases, with Maven, at Apache, for years now. And all of them have reused
> version numbers for respins. And all of them have carefully used staging
> technology (old: directories, new: Nexus) to ensure that artifacts do
13 matches
Mail list logo
