On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Note, that in ASF the RCs are NOT published into public Maven > repo and are generally not disclosed ouside of the dev. community. > I think in this discussion the proposal is to use "RC" in the version of an official ASF release (e.g. "1.0.0-RC1") - if thats the case it could/would be published to the public Maven repo and advertised outside the dev community. Niall > > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:48 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > For clarification, the "RELEASE" version qualifier is only used for the > > final GA (production-grade release), not any other version. So, by way > of > > example, (using Spring Data GemFire > > <https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-gemfire/releases> [0]) > the > > release series will progress as follows... > > > > 1.7.0.M1 > > 1.7.0.RC1 > > 1.7.0.RELEASE > > 1.7.1.RELEASE > > 1.7.2.RELEASE > > 1.8.0.M1 > > 1.8.0.RC1 > > 1.8.0.RELEASE > > > > There can be any number of milestone and release candidates in between. > > > > With Spring, rather than having alpha, beta, etc type releases, we just > use > > milestones (which implies things are changing... feature additions, > > enhancements, bug fixes, etc) while release candidates indicate hardening > > of the release version (mainly bug fixes, perhaps minor enhancements that > > won't destabalize the build) and final RELEASE of course, indicates, it > is > > ready for production. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > -John > > > > [0] - https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-gemfire/releases > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> As a starting point for discussion, I’ve set the version on the > >> release/1.0.0-incubating-alpha1 branch to: > >> > >> 1.0.0-incubating-alpha1 > >> > >> Is there a preference to follow the Spring convention as John is > >> suggesting? Are there many / any ASF projects following that > convention?. > >> Here’ s what that version string would look like: > >> > >> 1.0.0-incubating-alpha1.RELEASE > >> > >> > >> I do think we should remove the -SNAPSHOT from the version on the > release > >> branch so that we can validate the exact bits that we will publish. > Also, > >> I don’t see a need to do M? or RC? releases before this initial release. > >> IMHO of course... > >> > >> Anthony > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:44 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > In Spring, the releaseType (qualifier) is always (BUILD-)SNAPSHOT > unless > >> it > >> > is a release (M1, M2, ..., RC1, ... RELEASE (GA)). > >> > > >> > When a particular version ends, for instance when 1.0.0.RELASE goes > GA, > >> the > >> > version/releaseType switches to 1.1.0.(BUILD-)SNAPSHOT and a 1.0.x > branch > >> > is created to "service" the old version (with subsequent releases > being > >> > 1.0.1.RELEASE, 1.0.2.RELEASE, etc; the 1.0.x development branch will > have > >> > then have subsequent versions of 1.0.3.(BUILD-)SNAPSHOT), but remain > >> with a > >> > releaseType of (BUILD-)SNAPSHOT). > >> > > >> > Make sense? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:26 AM, William Markito <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I think we can keep it snapshot until it actually becomes a final > >> >> release... Ideally it would go - *SNAPSHOT -> BETA, RC, RC2.... - > >> >> Release* - > >> >> but by keeping it snapshots until the "final" release will probably > easy > >> >> the process, unless ASF requires otherwise. > >> >> > >> >> By the way, I'm looking into this - > >> >> https://github.com/researchgate/gradle-release and not sure we > already > >> use > >> >> that in our scripts. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I was looking in our gradle.properties file: > >> >>> > >> >>> versionNumber = 1.0.0-incubating > >> >>> releaseType = SNAPSHOT > >> >>> > >> >>> I’m not sure what the releaseType should be for a non-SNAPSHOT > release > >> >> :-) > >> >>> > >> >>> Given that version is set to: > >> >>> > >> >>> version = versionNumber + '-' + releaseType > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm wondering if we should just simplify this and set the version > >> >> directly > >> >>> in the properties file. > >> >>> > >> >>> Thoughts? > >> >>> > >> >>> Anthony > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> > >> >> William Markito Oliveira > >> >> -- For questions about Apache Geode, please write to > >> >> *[email protected] > >> >> <[email protected]>* > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > -John > >> > 503-504-8657 > >> > john.blum10101 (skype) > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -John > > 503-504-8657 > > john.blum10101 (skype) >
