changing the artifact name will break the conflict resolution when the project is not incubating anymore. we should not change the artifact names (again) when we get out of the incubator.
I finally found the guideline Tom was referring to: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven "It is best to use the groupId and artifactId that will be used upon graduation. The version should includeincubating (or incubator) to ensure that the artifacts created comply with Incubator release policy <http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases>" On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/10/2015 02:23 PM, Julien Le Dem wrote: > >> I thought we had that discussion before and the conclusion was that the >> source release is the actual release and the one that needs -incubating in >> the name. >> In particular in >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list >> "3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries." >> >> adding "-incubating" in the version breaks the SemVer semantics ( >> http://semver.org/) "A pre-release version MAY be denoted by appending a >> hyphen and a series of dot separated identifiers immediately following the >> patch version". >> >> I'm against adding -incubating in the version. The version is 2.3.0 here. >> maven artifacts are generated from the source release as convenience to >> other projects. >> >> +1 on the release. >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> File names (including binary files) need to include "-incubating" in >>> them [1]. This is usually achieved by including it in the version >>> string, e.g. 2.3.0-incubating. >>> >>> Otherwise this looks good to me. >>> >>> Tom >>> >> > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to solve the naming and version issue before bringing this to an > IPMC vote. With 2 +1s (Brock and Julien), and what I'll call a +0 from Tom, > this vote does not pass. > > I'll go back today and try to add -incubating to the artifacts without > adding it to the version string. I think the only thing we need to fix is > the naming for maven artifacts, although removing the .zip that Brock > pointed out is a good idea to pass in an IPMC vote because it is confusing > to have two source artifacts. I'll get a new RC out after that. > > > rb > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc. >
