Exactly! :-)
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 < > > fred.co...@gmail.com>: > > > > 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 <ja...@tesla.io> 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 <fred.co...@gmail.com> 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 < > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> 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: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone >
