I don't know if it is a hard requirement. I don't *think* so, but I could be wrong.
You could always create the artifacts without the suffix and see if the Mentors and then Incubator PMC approves them. Coupled with clear notes about the incubating status, it may fly. +1 to not having it in the actual artifact name but make it clear as day on the website and in the release notes. On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> But if you feel strongly about it, I can create the branch right away. >> Nope - no strong opinions. I can wait. I was just looking at the >> 1.0.1 Jira issues, and 2 of them actually look like non-backwards >> compatible changes and would have to be moved to 1.1. I was thinking >> that if anyone wanted to do that stuff anytime soon, they'd probably >> need to have a 1.0.x branch made so they can do the 1.1 development in >> the trunk. But I don't think I'm going to attack these immediately, so >> I can certainly wait :) > > Well, in that case. Of course the coin side of it is that if we get > the 1.1 out before any critical issues arise we don't necessarily ever > have to come up with 1.0.1. I'll create the branch before I start the > release process tomorrow morning. I just ran the release dryRun and > although there's a few fixes I still need to make, I have some faith > in the current pom configuration and hopefully won't need to make too > many final adjustments to the poms. > > One more: the current version carries the -incubating label in the > version - do you know if it's a requirement or can we simply release > 1.0.0? It was my understanding from the discussions that it's the same > as with RCs - they are not needed as part of the version but the > incubation status can simply be acknowledged in the release notes. And > actually, I do remember that at least CXF used plain version digits > while they were still in incubator. > > Kalle >
