On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Thinking about this, I would prefer 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, as it will > also indicate that the SNAPSHOTs (on Central) are from incubating. > There are no snapshots on Central... So, I would propose 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT (and 0.1.0-incubating for the > release). > > Regards > JB > > On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > >> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I >> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it >> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics, >> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only >> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases. >> >> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development >> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release >> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with >>> "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT". >>> >>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per >>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things >>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2, >>> etc. >>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier >>> "-incubating-SNAPSHOT" >>> will not get that benefit. >>> >>> Here's a very specific example from [1]: >>> >>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,” >>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the >>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though >>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is >>> going >>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”. >>> >>> >>> There are several orthogonal decisions here: >>> >>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the >>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be >>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be >>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>. >>> >>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part, >>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really >>> ready >>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly >>> build, >>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation >>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to >>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling. >>> >>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have >>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others >>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the >>> artifact >>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier, >>> however. >>> >>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked >>> as >>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We >>> have >>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It >>> might >>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So, >>> we >>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more >>> clearly that this is a pre-release version. >>> >>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows: >>> >>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we >>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes >>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the >>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and >>> release as 2.0.0. >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi beamers, >>>> >>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming >>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code >>>> cleanup >>>> and polishing. >>>> >>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing >>>> the >>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow. >>>> >>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I >>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with >>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT. >>>> >>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, >>>> let >>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> -- >>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> jbono...@apache.org >>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> >>>> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
