Done! I pushed a new release branch to avoid confusion and set the build version as 1.0.0-incubating.M1. The branch is release/1.0.0-incubating.M1. I used the same commit for the base revision (a097fcf32cb20f2258637b1e1f6829c632a89e46).
Can someone with JIRA privs rename the 1.0.0-alpha1 version to 1.0.0-incubating.M1? Anthony > On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Nitin Lamba <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > This should be trivial to update within JIRA. > > Anthony: if we have consensus, can you please update the tag within git to > match? > > Thanks, > Nitin > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Bretl <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: releaseType? > > +1 > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Jens Deppe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:08 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds like the consensus is to use the Spring conventions (note that >> we >>>> can always change later…most projects I surveyed have evolved their >>> release >>>> naming over time). Shall we also adopt Swapnil’s suggestion to change >>> from >>>> alpha1 to M1? That is: >>>> >>>> 1.0.0-incubating.M1 >>>> >>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Niall Pemberton < >> [email protected] >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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) >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -John >>> 503-504-8657 >>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
