This discussion keeps popping up every few month. At the end we alway conclude that we don't want to publish anything that's binary incompatible under the same coordinates. So way are we discussing this again? Appending "beta" to a release version will not stop people from using it. So why not simply call it 1.0 and be done with it?
Benedikt Am Fr., 31. Aug. 2018 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > On 30 August 2018 at 15:35, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But SNAPSHOT builds _are_ publicly available on repository.apache.org. > Sure > > they come and go and you cannot rely on their permanence. > > Just about all our code is available from URLs that don't require logins. > > However only formal releases should be announced to the general public. > > Other links should be confined to pages intended for Commons developers > > > Gary > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 04:50 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> SNAPSHOT builds must only be published to Commons developers. > >> They cannot be published on public download pages. > >> > >> Also they may disappear or be replaced at any time. > >> > >> Beta builds are subject to a release VOTE, and so can be published in > >> the usual way. > >> Once published, they are permanently available. > >> > >> On 30 August 2018 at 09:38, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > What's the difference to a nightly build being published to the Apache > >> > Snapshot repo? > >> > > >> > Benedikt > >> > > >> > Am Mi., 29. Aug. 2018 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Gary Gregory < > >> > garydgreg...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> >> We do not have hard rules for betas AFAIK. IMO, only a beta can > depend > >> on > >> >> another beta, for example see HttpComponents. We should not release a > >> >> non-beta that depends on a beta. I think breaking BC is to be > expected > >> in > >> >> an alpha and less so in a beta. Changing package names and > coordinates > >> from > >> >> one beta to the next seems a bit excessive but I would not object to > it. > >> >> > >> >> Gary > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 10:36 Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hello. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do you have an idea of what it would take to automate "beta" > >> >> > releases? > >> >> > By this I mean: take a component (at some state) and create > >> >> > a branch (with all the necessary adaptations) to become an > >> >> > official release. > >> >> > > >> >> > Are "beta" releases subject to the same BC requirements as > >> >> > "ordinary" ones? Concretely, suppose that several releases > >> >> > will be necessary: Do they have to change top-level package > >> >> > name? > >> >> > > >> >> > Can a (non-"beta") release (of some component) depend on a > >> >> > "beta" release (of another component)? Or has the former to > >> >> > be a "beta" too? > >> >> > > >> >> > Rationale: I imagine that uploading to "Maven Central" may > >> >> > help correcting the misrepresentation of resources available > >> >> > from this project. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > Gilles > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
