The bahir one was a good argument actually. I just clicked the button to push it into Maven central.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: > Fine. I don't feel strongly enough about it to continue to argue against > putting the artifacts on Maven Central. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Artifacts can't be removed from Maven in any normal circumstance, but, >> it's no problem. >> >> The argument that people might keep using it goes for any older >> release. Why would anyone use 1.6.0 when 1.6.1 exists? yet we keep >> 1.6.0 just for the record and to not break builds. It may be that >> Foobar 3.0-beta depends on 2.0.0-preview and 3.0 will shortly depend >> on 2.0.0, but, killing the -preview artifact breaks that other >> historical release/branch. >> >> I agree that "-alpha-1" would have been better. But we're talking >> about working around pretty bone-headed behavior, to not notice what >> version of Spark they build against, or not understand what >> 2.0.0-preview vs 2.0.0 means in a world of semver. >> >> BTW Maven sorts 2.0.0-preview before 2.0.0, so 2.0.0 would show up as >> the latest, when released, in tools like mvn >> versions:display-dependency-updates. You could exclude the preview >> release by requiring version [2.0.0,). >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> >> wrote: >> > Precisely because the naming of the preview artifacts has to fall >> outside of >> > the normal versioning, I can easily see incautious Maven users a few >> months >> > from now mistaking the preview artifacts as spark-2.0-something-special >> > instead of spark-2.0-something-stale. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> >> >
