Re: [VOTE] Versioning after a failed release
A (non-binding). FWIW: Stuart brought me off the fence. If the first 1.0.x release is 1.0.5 then under semantic versioning guidelines this would mean 5 releases of the bundle at previous micro numbers have already passed which might cause users some confusion, or cause them to ask for an explanation. This confusion persists for ever more. The number of people seeing this admittedly lesser kind of confusion will likely be far greater than the people who use the RC artifacts from a staging repo, who should know better. On 5 February 2011 12:50, Stuart McCulloch mccu...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 February 2011 12:21, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote: As long has the release has not been approved, the tag does not match an official release, so it can be freely deleted. yep, that's what I meant - another point to consider is users might see 1.0.5 and think it's stable (as it's not 1.0.0) whereas in fact there could have been 5 staged versions just to sort out license / dependency issues and no actual code changes Once the release is voted, I think everyone agree the tag becomes immutable. FWIW, Git is much better as a tag really correspond to a moment in the history, not a branch (which actually makes more sense if you think about it). agreed, git is better in this regard - but it can be hard to understand at times :) On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:04, Felix Meschberger fmesc...@adobe.com wrote: Hi, Am Samstag, den 05.02.2011, 09:52 + schrieb Sahoo: On Friday 04 February 2011 04:48 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote: it is easy to retag releases in svn What exactly do you mean by retag releases in svn? Rename an existing tag or using the same tag name to tag a different snapshot of the source code base? Neither should be done in my IMHO. Agreed, both is far too easy ... Regards Felix -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com -- Cheers, Stuart
Re: [VOTE] Versioning after a failed release
Just to be clear does failed release mean: i) a release whose artifacts were published e.g. to apache.org/dist or maven central then found to be bad ii) a release that failed before the artifacts were published I had been working to ii) but I can see there could be confusion. Jeremy On 4 February 2011 08:50, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote: Following the discussion, I'm starting a vote to decide on a policy for failed releases. [ ] A - Releases following a failed release can reuse the same version [ ] B - Releases following a failed release must use a different version The vote will be opened for at least 72 hours. Happy voting! -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Cross-pollination and help from the Felix community have been talked about several times and I absolutely welcome that. As such, please would Felix committers willing to spend time helping the (proposed) Aries podling add their names to the initial committer list on the proposal wiki [1]. This naturally extends beyond Felix committers. Apologies for x-post to d...@felix ... I wanted to attract as many as possible :-) [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AriesProposal Thanks, Jeremy 2009/9/5 Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com: Karl, Please don't get me wrong. Felix is choice for an excellent *destination* TLP. The Incubator PMC itself was setup to take away the responsibility for training incoming folks from existing TLP(s). So my gut feeling is that we should allow the incubation process to go on and decide on destination and scope once the project is ready to graduate. I am sure the folks on the proposal would love to get any and every help they can get to graduate as well as on the technical front. Please do continue to provide help and guidance. thanks, dims On 09/05/2009 10:29 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Davanum Srinivasdava...@gmail.com wrote: Karl, There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out earlier in the thread. I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an existing TLP just because of scope. For all you know by the time they get out of the incubator their scope may change a bit (or more). I'm sorry if it looked like I wanted to shoe horn anything into felix. That wasn't my goal as for me it was a question of where I would like it to happen and as I said earlier already, not the end of the world if not. regards, Karl thanks, dims On 09/05/2009 04:31 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: The question is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be done at felix - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
