2017-01-03 13:06 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>: > When you say "it denotes a lack of maturity which is exactly the purpose > AFAIK", what do you mean my maturity? > Maturity in terms of how well it follows Apache processes and principles? > Or in terms of "the project is not ready for prime time"? > > For example, for Apache Groovy, the project was very mature, and was > already 11 years old when it joined the ASF. > It was very stable, very mature, very solid. > And it was a bit weird to append "-incubating", as people thought it meant > "not ready for prime time" rather that "going through ASF incubation". > Furthermore it forced users to also change the appId although they usually > change only the version number, which might be in some property file > externally. It's not such a big big deal, but it's still something they had > to do, which is a bit unconvenient. > > And that is exactly this. Don't get me wrong, I'm part of several incubating projects and I don't like to have -incubating cause it looks not mature where sometimes code is very robust...but the project is immature - otherwise it wouldn't be in incubator. Even for groovy, there were few chances but still some, it doesn't match ASF and it could have moved somewhere else which is a stability issue which is important to show in the published artifacts.
Not sure I get the appId since most incubator projects don't reflect the state in the groupId but only the version for this exact reason (make user upgrade from incubator to TLP just a version to change and not all coordinates - which makes the classifier as bad as the groupId and version a good compromise). > I also second the idea that such a rule should apply to all kind of > artifacts or none, but not be an exception of Maven artifacts. > It doesn't make sense to enforce a rule for just one... and hence the idea > of lifting that rule altogether for everybody. > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > -1, I think it is important to show that the artifact dependency is not > > stable and should be used as such (if the project never graduates, even > if > > code is very mature then you still get all the troubles you can think > > about). > > > > Question is IMHO the opposite: why others don't follow the -incubating > rule > > as well? > > > > PS: of course an alternative to follow maven common practise would be to > > put incubating in the groupId instead of version but in practise we have > > more easily a placeholder for the version than the groupId so I still > think > > version is the easiest place for users. Also note no user complained > about > > that excepted about the fact it denotes a lack of maturity which is > exactly > > the purpose AFAIK. > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory > > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > > > 2017-01-03 12:50 GMT+01:00 Myrle Krantz <mkra...@mifos.org>: > > > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > > If a best practice targets only maven and not the others, wouldn't that > > be > > > a reason for a podling to consider avoiding using maven to distribute > > > binaries at all? Is it fair for Apache to disadvantage maven that way? > > > > > > Can Apache enforce policies about binaries not released under the > Apache > > > name? Wouldn't that sort of policy be in contradiction to the Apache > > > license? > > > > > > Keeping a best practice which is not only unenforceable and > inconsistent, > > > but also disadvantageous to any project which tries to follow it, > > > discredits other best practices as well. (Broken windows theory) > > > > > > Greets from Germany > > > Myrle > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Carsten, Julian, > > > > > > > > I want to reiterate my notes from a prior message [1] in case there > is > > > any > > > > confusion over the ask. There is a "best practice" around maven > > specific > > > > releases that has been treated as policy, [2]. This best practice > for > > > > some reason is only applied if you are using the maven build tool. > > E.g. > > > > published python packages, ruby gems do not have this requirement. > The > > > > purpose of this thread is to realign maven specific releases with the > > > other > > > > convenience binaries published by podlings. > > > > > > > > This is not intended to drop the -incubator/-incubating tag applied > to > > > > source releases. It was however established in 2008 [3] that > releases > > > > published by the incubator were endorsed, the -incubator/incubating > tag > > > was > > > > to imply that the project itself was not considered stable and could > go > > > > away. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c6daddf2d564685acdcd14a876bebf > > > > 392b25c268905b353e36b3cac5@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > > > > [2]: > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best- > > practice-maven > > > > [3]: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c > > > > 83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral. > incubator.apache.org > > %3E > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:47 AM Carsten Ziegeler < > cziege...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > I followed the "other thread" but it's still unclear to me what > real > > > > > problem this tries to solve. > > > > > As others noted, there should be an indicator whether this is > already > > > an > > > > > official Apache project or in the incubator and adding it to the > > > version > > > > > information is the solution with causes the least amount of pain > for > > > > > users. It's a simple marker, clearly visible for any user. > > > > > And once the project is out of the incubator, users simply need to > > > > > update to a new version - something which they would do anyway. > > > > > > > > > > Carsten > > > > > > > > > > John D. Ament wrote > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change. Current guide > at > > > [1] > > > > > > indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or > > > incubating) > > > > > in > > > > > > the version string of maven artifacts. Its labeled as a best > > > practice, > > > > > not > > > > > > a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository > > > > management > > > > > > tools (e.g. PyPi). > > > > > > > > > > > > I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting > > > > > java-based > > > > > > projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version > > > string, > > > > > > with the understanding that: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, > not > > a > > > > > > release's stability. It is generally understood that incubating > > > > projects > > > > > > are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing > > to > > > > > become > > > > > > a TLP. > > > > > > - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not > > endorsed. > > > > We > > > > > > will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF > policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven > > projects > > > > > > [ ] +/0 > > > > > > [ ] -1 Don't drop because.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best- > > > > practice-maven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Carsten Ziegeler > > > > > Adobe Research Switzerland > > > > > cziege...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >
