On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > sebb> Given that SVN history for tags/testhead > > We have agreed that we don't need the tags, so let's just drop them > and close the discussion. > Note: I don't care if the tags will be removed from SVN or not.
We should clear up SVN before doing any conversion to Git. > sebb> No, it's just the reverse, because 5.2-SNAPSHOT is later than > sebb> 5.1-SNAPSHOT so it 'hides' the later builds which are tagged > sebb> 5.1-SNAPSHOT. > > Suppose a client is using 5.1-SNAPSHOT version: > > <dependency>...<artifactId>ApacheJMeter_core</artifactId><version>5.1-SNAPSHOT</version> > Then 5.2-SNAPSHOT won't 'hide' it or whatever. > The client will use 5.1-SNAPSHOT no matter whatever other versions > (snapshot or non-snapshot) are released. > > What do you mean by 'hides'? A person looking at the repo will see that there is 5.2-SNAPSHOT and naturally assume it is more recent than 5.1-SNAPSHOT. > > > 5.1-SNAPSHOT > > > 5.1-SNAPSHOT > > > 5.2 <- this commit is tagged with v5.2 > > > 5.3-SNAPSHOT > > > 5.3-SNAPSHOT > > > sebb> The above is wrong - what happened to 5.2-SNAPSHOT? > > For instance: it was agreed to release the version as 5.2 even though > snapshot was named 5.1-SNAPSHOT. AFAIK, we never do that; 5.2 is released from 5.2-SNAPSHOT > Technically speaking I intended to list 5.2-SNAPSHOT instead of 5.1-SNAPSHOT. Understood. > However both histories are perfectly fine even though > 5.1-SNAPSHOT->5.2 is slightly confusing. OK, except I disagree that trunk/master should ever be a release version. > My point is at some (single!) point in time master branch should have > a release version. This is where we disagree - it should never have a release version otherwise there are issues with CI and potential confusion over what is the release. > sebb>At this point master has a release version, which is a no-no as > sebb>already explained. > > You have never explained why it is wrong to have a single commit with > a release version in a master branch. > Would you please elaborate? I already explained this several times: any CI builds create what looks like a release version. Also, if anyone exports the master at that point, it appears to be a release, and local builds will generate what appear to be releases from the version. Violates POLA. > sebb> It's documented on the Wiki > > My point is docs-x.y violates POLA and release-x.y does not. I disagree, because docs-x.y is not a release. It is the docs for the release-x.y, so it should be named something like docs-for-release-x.y in order to be obvious. > Vladimir
