2013/5/29 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: > On 29 May 2013 06:49, jieryn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I'd like to work on Arnaud's idea of error message enhancement in case a >> > plugin fails because of unavailable Sonatype Aether: if you can let me >> 12 more >> > hours from now, I'll do it tonight >> >> Version numbers are cheap. Can't we just make an alpha-2? >> >> I'm just a user, but I'm getting pretty sick of staged alpha releases >> being dropped. >> >> This happened with 3.0.5 as well. Just release it already. They are >> alphas. Christ. >> > > Well for the NOTICE.txt issue, we cannot actually make a release for legal > reasons without > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commitdiff;h=b0a83f62 > being > part of the release. > > The question is whether it is better to have the first 3.1.0 alpha release > be called 3.1.0-alpha-4 or 3.1.0-alpha-1 > > When people come back and look at the git history, they will see the > commits with "[maven-release] Prepare 3.1.0-alpha-1" through to > "[maven-release] Prepare 3.1.0-alpha-4" but only see the tag for > maven-3.1.0-alpha-4 and they might incorrectly assume that somebody just > forgot to push the tag (similarly they could undelete the SVN tag, so this > is not a GIT thing) and then you could end up with a situation where the > ASF is sued for making a release of Maven without attributing the Eclipse > foundation correctly... > > Yes, I know that specific example is unlikely, but the point is that there > is potential for that type of thing... and we have the mailing lists as a > record, etc. > > Jenkins 1.453's borked partial release was enough to convince me that > dropping the staging repo and respining with the same version number is > probably the lesser evil.... though that might be because I had to go and > do some workarounds for some automated analysis and other fancy shit I was > doing. > > I guess my point is that 3 months later I had to go digging and it took > quite some time to find out that Jenkins 1.453 was actually a failed > partial release and while there were artifacts for jenkins-core published, > there were none for jenkins-war. > > Prior to 1.453 I would have been agreeing with KK's assertion that the ASF > version reuse was just madness. > > But having said all that, if we can find a good way to flag versions as not > released (e.g. a release history page or something) I am not against > skipping version numbers. Might confuse people though if that meant that > the first release of Maven 3.1.0 was 3.1.4 (i.e. if we had not been doing > alpha's)
it's just consuming a tag for "nothing" and not having an official Apache release for this tag (not publishing sources or binaries) Where is the issue ? some projects like httpd or tomcat do that. > > >> -Jesse >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> -- Olivier Lamy Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
