jason i think that was a suggestion to conform more to standard apache releases from someone in incubator. if it was mandatory we would have burned for that too many times to count at this point. i'm good to change it if everyone else is. what do we want them to be?
apache-tinkerpop-console-x.y.z.zip apache-tinkerpop-server-x.y.z.zip or the full business: apache-tinkerpop-gremlin-console-x.y.z.zip apache-tinkerpop-gremlin-server-x.y.z.zip i guess we lost "-incubating" now so the latter doesn't look so bad to me anymore. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, an imminent release is good. There are 2 severe bug fixes in master/ > (3.2.1) that I would like to get out there. 3.2.0 had lots of internal > changes to OLAP and I paid the price by incurring bugs. :| > > > Somebody had mentioned that our distributables are supposed to be named > > apache-tinkerpop*.zip instead of apache-gremlin*.zip. Maybe that's > > something that should be done along with this release. > > There is really no such thing as "tinkerpop" besides the source code which > is distributed as apache-tinkerpop-*.zip. The two other distributions are > gremlin-console and gremlin-server and I think we should keep those naming > conventions as they are so they reflect what is being distributed. Thus, I > think the naming of our artifacts is correct. > > Thanks, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > On May 25, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Somebody had mentioned that our distributables are supposed to be named > > apache-tinkerpop*.zip instead of apache-gremlin*.zip. Maybe that's > > something that should be done along with this release. > > > > -- Jason > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> cool, Ted. it would be good to have another hand there. > >> > >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ted Wilmes <twil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I think a release sounds good. I'd be interested in witnessing the the > >>> post-PMC vote release steps so that I might be able to help out on an > >>> upcoming release. > >>> > >>> --Ted > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Marvin Froeder <velo...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Your are right, for some reason I though it was on the artifactId as > >> well > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >> spmalle...@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I don't think we need to relocate anything. The "-incubating" is just > >>> in > >>>>> the version name, so we will just remove it for future releases. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < > >>> jbmu...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I think this is a good idea. This could make these releases look > >> more > >>>>>> "stable": I've often felt that the -incubating suffix somehow made > >>>>>> releases look "alpha-ish" / "beta-ish", even though they were not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Naming aside, bug fixes never hurt. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >>>> spmalle...@gmail.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> We've seen a lot of good fixes/optimizations to 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 > >>> and I > >>>>>>> wonder if we shouldn't exercise our new found TLP powers to do a > >>>>> release > >>>>>>> and get rid of the "-incubating" at the end of our "current" > >>>>>> distributions > >>>>>>> and artifacts. thoughts? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
