But you asked the wrong jump then. It would be 3.0.5 to 4.0.4... There's no way we'd skip 4.0.x to go to 4.1.x if we have not had a 4.0.x released at all.
My point is patch version people are perfectly fine with skips.... Minor version skips would be bad, but there is zero need for them. On Sunday, 15 September 2013, Robert Scholte wrote: > That someone might have been me. > I did an internal poll to ask if people would understand if Maven would > jump from 3.0.5 to 4.1.3. > None of them did, they all wondered what happened to the missing versions. > Sure they understand that 4.1.3 is newer than 3.0.5, these aren't morons. > > One major difference is that Maven can't update itself to the latest > version. If that would be the case, then versions are only interesting to > reproduce issues and people often wouldn't see/matter the version. > > *If* we would allow gaps, we should also introduce LTS releases. > > For now, I'd prefer reusing versions and no gaps. I don't mind deleting > tags, otherwise I'd prefer the usage of RCx during votes. > > Robert > > Op Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:05:55 +0200 schreef Fred Cooke < > [email protected]>: > > Last time someone asked this I went straight to central and found two > examples. There are plenty out there. I'm not doing it again, you're more > than capable. Also note, it's not much different to go from 3.1.2 to 3.1.4 > than it is from 3.1.5 to 3.2.0; you still miss out versions, an infinite > number of them, in fact. > > Preferring not to have gaps is a choice and one I was aware you lot would > make. That's why I didn't bring it up in the first place despite preferring > to just straight miss them. Or just straight publish all releases (as is > normal mvn practice since forever) and direct users to the ones that > work... I *think* this is what Stephen is trying to say, but if I'm honest > I missed out a lot of what he wrote. Forgive me, it's 2am here. > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > The users may well be developers, but I don't think that warrants changing > a normal pattern. Maybe only I consider this a normal pattern, but I don't > know of any examples, personally, where externally represented versions > have gaps in them. I'd ask you the same question I asked Stephen as to > whether you know of any projects, or products, that do this? Just because > we can skip versions isn't a good reason to do so. If lots of projects do > it then it's worth considering. Have any examples on hand? > > For now while I'm doing the core releases, I would prefer not to have > gaps. Call me provincial, but I'd like to do what we've always done since > the inception of the project unless there is a compelling reason to do > otherwise. > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Fred Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jason, PLEASE understand that you do NOT have a single user. Not even > one. > > Nada. Zilch. You have developers. Developers, by definition, are not > > *completely* stupid (though some try to fool us!). They can handle > missing > > versions. If you released firefox 12 after firefox 10 it would be > confusing > > for millions, maven 3.1.5 after maven 3.1.1, ONLY a complete and utter > > moron would be confused by this. Few developers are that stupid, and > those > > who are have limited months of career as a dev ahead of them. "it's > > confusing" holds no water in the context of a hard-core dev tool IMO. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Stephen Connolly < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The difference is that you say those versions did not pass QA. > >> > >> As a user I'd rather know that what I have *unabiguously* passed QA > >> (whatever that QA process is, and however lax it is) than know the > >> increasing version numbers. On top of that, if we go increasing, with no > >> skips, we are actually giving people a false sense of extra QA... By > >> telling people "go to this page where we list the status of each > version" > >> then they will not be confused at all... Instead they get greater > >> confidence... > >> > >> They will see > >> > >> * some versions we never released a binary for... Those were really bad > >> > >> * some versions we released a binary for... And then found critical > bugs is > >> > >> * some versions we released a binary for, but its only recent so there > >> could be regressions our test suite missed > >> > >> * some versions we reased a binary for, have had no serious issues > raised > >> for the past 6 weeks and are considered stable > >> > >> * some versions we no longer recommend > >> > >> As a user such a page gives me much more confidence in the project > rather > >> than our current "every release is a release" lase fair attitude that > saw > >> 2.1.0 pushed as the latest for longer than was healthy given the > artifact > >> signing issues. As a user it also gives me more confidence that once I > see > >> a new release transition to stable (say 6 weeks) or recommended (say 3 > >> months) that I am following the project guidelines > >> > >> I am not saying the version would be missing (the tag would always be > >> there) but that a binary or source dist would not... > >> > >> Everyone is entitled to their opinion... previously it was Maven > developers > >> who said no missing version... Iirc you are the first to suggest users > >> would be confused.... Have we actually asked users which is more > confusing? > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Sent from my phone
