On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:06 PM Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28/08/18 05:56, Huxing Zhang wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM jun liu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The sonatype team have deleted all artifacts of 2.6.3 from central > >> repository. I will start 2.6.3 RC4 vote now. > > Just a thought. > > Some users may have downloaded 2.6.3 while it was on Maven central. If > you now release 2.6.3 you could end up in the position where if a user > reports they are using 2.6.3 you don't know which of the two 2.6.3 > versions they are using.
Based on the feedback [1][2], I think the unexpected deployment is not complete. The dubbo-parent is not deployed the maven central. Since all the sub modules depends on it, I think the compilation will eventually fail. Therefore I guess it is safe to use 2.6.3? [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo/issues/2331 [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo/issues/2326 > > If the diff between the accidentally released RC and what ends up being > formally released as 2.6.3 has zero functional impact then you are > probably OK but there always the risk that there will be something. > > It is worth considering throwing away that version number and moving to > 2.6.4 for the next release. > > More generally, version numbers are viewed as 'cheap' at the ASF. It > isn't a big deal to decide not to use one for some reason. Tomcat, for > example, doesn't use RCs. Most of our release votes pass first time but > if they don't we fix the issue, increment the version number and try again. > > I have seen other projects decide not to use a version number of various > reasons that all, generally, boil down to confusion over exactly what > that version number represents. Moving to a new version number is often > the simplest way to avoid potential confusion. > > Mark -- Best Regards！ Huxing
