It's not entirely true that versions don't matter. Alpha or Beta is really a less important distinction and we are generally trying to move away from more alpha/beta releases. I would argue that since Maven requires Shade to release, that the current version should be 1.0 not alpha or beta.
Doing a release is much more than slapping a version (tag) on it. It makes the next version usable by other people to do releases because it means we've pushed a non-snapshot to the public. If there are people unaffected by MSHADE-9, then there is still value to those people in having a release now rather than later. I think in general we try to fix too many things at once and end up not getting important fixes out to the people that need them. I'd rather see a release come out with the current fixes and then when MSHADE-9 is fixed, we do another release. At least then some people can use it rather than making everyone wait...and realistically doing the release doesn't preclude someone from fixing the issue in parallel so it shouldn't in theory delay the inevitable release with the MSHADE-9 fix in it. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Fabulich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:25 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 Responding out of order, techincal stuff first... Daniel Kulp wrote: > The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. > It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless > someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) I'm not saying MSHADE-9 is easy to fix, but that claim assumes we're using ASM correctly, which seems like a pretty bold assumption to me; ASM is notoriously finicky. If anything's likely to be wrong, it's probably us! > Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a > year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. Version 3.1 of ASM came out in October. ASM is very much a live project. I'd say it's at least worth trying the latest version of ASM. > IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this > plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that > fixed. I agree we should do a release now. But I do think it matters what we call it. > I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just > doesn't matter. <rant> I disagree that version numbers don't matter, though it's obviously a seductive argument. (It's just a number, right?) But bugs certainly do matter when they get released (or, at least, we have to behave as if they do or we'll release crappy software). But all we do when we make a "release" is slap a version number/name on something. If version numbers don't matter, then it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we change version numbers, i.e. it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we release. Since bugs and releases matter, version numbers matter just as much as that. Of course, if bugs don't matter, then sure, it doesn't matter whether we call our buggy software 1.0 or 2008 Business Edition. ;-) Specifically, if MSHADE-9 doesn't matter at all, well, it's the only "Blocker" bug filed against the shade plugin right now, so I guess we *SHOULD* release 1.0... none of the other bugs matter as much as that one, right? :-) </rant> -Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
