+1 agree that right the problem is theoretical esp if the preview label is in the version coordinates as it should be.
On Saturday, June 4, 2016, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Artifacts that are not for public consumption shouldn't be in a public > release; this is instead what nightlies are for. However, this was a > normal public release. > > I am not even sure why it's viewed as particularly unsafe, but, unsafe > alpha and beta releases are just releases, and their name and > documentation clarify their status for those who care. These are > regularly released by other projects. > > That is, the question is not, is this a beta? Everyone agrees it > probably is, and is documented as such. > > The question is, can you just not fully release it? I don't think so, > even as a matter of process, and don't see a good reason not to. > > To Reynold's quote, I think that's suggesting that not all projects > will release to a repo at all (e.g. OpenOffice?). I don't think it > means you're free to not release some things to Maven, if that's > appropriate and common for the type of project. > > Regarding risk, remember that the audience for Maven artifacts are > developers, not admins or end users. I understand that developers can > temporarily change their build to use a different resolver if they > care, but, why? (and, where would someone figure this out?) > > Regardless: the 2.0.0-preview docs aren't published to go along with > the source/binary releases. Those need be released to the project > site, though probably under a different /preview/ path or something. > If they are, is it weird that someone wouldn't find the release in the > usual place in Maven then? > > Given that the driver of this was concern over wide access to > 2.0.0-preview, I think it's best to err on the side openness vs some > theoretical problem. > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Personally I'd just put them on the staging repo and link to that on the > > downloads page. It will create less confusion for people browsing Maven > > Central later and wondering which releases are safe to use. > > > > Matei > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > It's not a question of whether the preview artifacts can be made > available > > on Maven central, but rather whether they must be or should be. I've > got no > > problems leaving these unstable, transitory artifacts out of the more > > permanent, canonical repository. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org <javascript:;> > > -- Want to work at Handy? Check out our culture deck and open roles <http://www.handy.com/careers> Latest news <http://www.handy.com/press> at Handy Handy just raised $50m <http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/02/on-demand-home-service-handy-raises-50m-in-round-led-by-fidelity/> led by Fidelity
