Missed that, thanks for digging it out. "should" is perhaps a little vague, but I guess it makes most sense to keep it as part of version coordinate. We'll go with that.
Kalle On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops. This states it is a required policy to have the '-incubating' > in the name: > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>> >> >
