Yeah, there's a 'must' in there as well (last sentence in the 3rd paragraph under 'Naming'):
"Incubator policy insists that it must also contain incubating (though small variations for the sake of readability are usually acceptable)." Where 'incubating' is in monospaced font. :/ On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >> >
