So, what you guys are saying is... * Keep trunk as a major release, ex 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT. * Release minor releases 2.0.1 and still keep trunk as 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT. * When 2.1.0 is released, update trunk to 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
Right? /srs On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: > On 10/1/09 16:36, Felix Meschberger wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb: >> >> >>> You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a >>> version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release. >>> >>> >> Or brather 2.0.2 because this is bundle release. The reason has been >> outline before but basically it is because Maven thinks 2.0.1 is more >> recent than 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT while OSGi thinks 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT is more >> recent. >> >> For this reason we reserve odd numbers for SNAPSHOTs and even numbers >> for releases. [This rule only applies for bundles and not for maven >> bundles were we just increment as usual] >> >> > > While this is true, it really depends when it comes to micro releases. > > For the framework we are typically working toward the next minor release, > e.g., 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT in trunk. However, when we go to cut the release, if it > is only a maintenance release, then we release it as 2.0.1 and there never > was a 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT. Then trunk stays at 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT. In other words, > our trunk is never a micro release, it is always a minor (or major) release. > > On the other hand, if a subproject operates as a micro release in trunk, > then yes they should likely follow the even/odd numbering strategy to avoid > version number inversion like you suggest. > > -> richard > > > Regards >> Felix >> >> >> >>> / srs >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org >>> >wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. >>>>> Also >>>>> will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do >>>>> the >>>>> NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to >>>>> be >>>>> a >>>>> 2.0.1 release? Could I just rollback the release by rolling back the >>>>> pom's >>>>> and delete the tag? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> For me, personally, I don't care. However, officially, the issue is >>>> since >>>> it was a failed release, we shouldn't release it all, because some >>>> people >>>> might have grabbed the last JARs and are treating them as the official >>>> release knowingly or not. So, the only way to prevent that is to not >>>> have >>>> that release version at all, which means we do 2.0.1 instead. >>>> >>>> As for why the digests failed in the first place, I don't really know. I >>>> thought Maven just did this automatically. I am a release newbie myself, >>>> so >>>> maybe someone else has some advice. >>>> >>>> -> richard >>>> >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> There are quite a few issues, but it is really not all that >>>>>> bad...actually, >>>>>> there is only one issue that is causing me to give a -1, which is the >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that the MD5 and SHA1 digests don't appear to match for me. Not sure >>>>>> why >>>>>> that would be the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are also a raft of other more minor issues that would not have >>>>>> caused >>>>>> a -1 necessarily, but now we can fix those too. They are: >>>>>> >>>>>> * The dependencies on OSGi should be on the official JARs at the >>>>>> appropriate version level needed (i.e., lowest acceptable >>>>>> version). >>>>>> * It appears that all NOTICE use the same name (Apache Felix HTTP >>>>>> Service), but it should be different for each subproject module. >>>>>> For example, the bridge module should be "Apache Felix HTTP >>>>>> Service Bridge". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for api says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't. >>>>>> Should also include Apache under "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for base says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't. >>>>>> Should also include Apache under "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for bridge should include Apache under "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for bundle should include Apache under "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for jetty should include Apache under "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE file for proxy says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE for samples bridge WAR file is not in META-INF directory, >>>>>> neither are LICENSE files. Should verify dependencies listed in >>>>>> NOTICE file. >>>>>> * NOTICE for samples filter says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE for samples whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only >>>>>> uses. Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>>>> * NOTICE for whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that if we have dependencies on Apache software, we still list >>>>>> them >>>>>> in >>>>>> the "uses" section of the NOTICE file...this is overly cautious, but >>>>>> not >>>>>> a >>>>>> big deal if we already have to keep track of third-party dependencies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Doing a release is difficult, so trying it as a newbie is to be >>>>>> commended. >>>>>> :-) At this point, we will need to scrap this release and do a 2.0.1 >>>>>> release >>>>>> with fixes for all of the above. Still, the main issue was the >>>>>> digests. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but good work none the less. Let me know if you have any >>>>>> questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> -> richard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/28/09 22:59, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a >>>>>>> major >>>>>>> refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original >>>>>>> http.jetty module. Docs will be available on wiki very soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is my first release ever so hopefully I have done all the things >>>>>>> right >>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We solved 7 issues in this release: >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/fixforversion/12314224 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are 8 outstanding issues: >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/component/12310340 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Staging repository: >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/felix-staging-007/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the >>>>>>> signatures: >>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Usage: >>>>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 007 /tmp/felix-staging >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please vote to approve this release: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
