You're referring to a gremlin-javascript release candidate and not to a general official release of all artifacts (java, .net, etc) for 3.3.2/3.2.8), right?
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Regarding the npm issue, we created a ticket on the npm issue tracker: > https://github.com/npm/registry/issues/281 and contacted support. > > We are waiting for a response from them, but in any case if it takes to > long for npm support to look at it, Jean-Baptiste could grant the > individual members of tinkerpop:developers / release manager access, so > that should not be blocking an official release of the JavaScript GLV. > > Can we start discussing a timeline for 3.2.8/3.3.2? > > Thanks, > Jorge > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Any luck? > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> hm... that's weird... It's working on my end with a different package... > >> > >> Maybe use a newer npm cli version? > >> > >> If npm access is still failing after cli upgrade, you could use npm > owner > >> <https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/owner> to add any other tinkerpop member > >> <https://www.npmjs.com/org/tinkerpop/members> as co-owner and we could > >> try to run npm access from there. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Musso <jbmu...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Getting a 403 Forbidden error: > >>> > >>> $ npm access grant read-write tinkerpop:developers gremlin > >>> npm http request PUT > >>> https://registry.npmjs.org/-/team/tinkerpop/developers/package > >>> npm http 403 https://registry.npmjs.org/-/t > >>> eam/tinkerpop/developers/package > >>> npm ERR! code E403 > >>> npm ERR! Forbidden : -/team/tinkerpop/developers/package > >>> > >>> Also: > >>> > >>> $ npm whoami > >>> npm http request GET https://registry.npmjs.org/-/whoami > >>> npm http 200 https://registry.npmjs.org/-/whoami > >>> jbmusso > >>> > >>> Funny, I got confused in my previous posts and just realized that: I > was > >>> prettier sure I owned gremlin-javascript, but I used to publish > >>> under gremlin-client. > >>> > >>> Jean-Baptiste > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > >>> jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > gremlin-javascript is not org scoped but "tinkerpop:developers" has > >>> write > >>> > access to it: > >>> > > >>> > npm access ls-packages tinkerpop:developers > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > What's the response for: > >>> > > >>> > npm access grant read-write tinkerpop:developers gremlin > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < > >>> jbmu...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hmm. It looks like you can only grant access to team of developers > >>> for > >>> > > @scoped package, but not for standard (unscoped) packages. > >>> > > I can make the "tinkerpop" user owner of that "gremlin" package, if > >>> that > >>> > > helps. > >>> > > > >>> > > Jean-Baptiste > >>> > > > >>> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > >>> > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Jean-Baptiste, could you grant tinkerpop:developers team access > to > >>> the > >>> > > > gremlin package? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Once we all have access, it would be nice to have a beta release > of > >>> > > > 3.2.8/3.3.2 as soon as possible, to allow users to start giving > it > >>> a > >>> > try. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > There aren't any others tickets in JIRA affecting the javascript > >>> GLV > >>> > > that I > >>> > > > could find. It has been a long road for the GLV but being an > >>> scripting > >>> > > > language, I expect it to be easier to maintain than the C# GLV :) > >>> > > > > >>> > > > If there aren't any blockers, it would be nice to start > discussing > >>> a > >>> > > > timeline for 3.2.8/3.3.2. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Cheers, > >>> > > > Jorge > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >>> > spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I've added The Baptist to the the org in npm - all done > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >>> > > spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I have no objections to using "gremlin" since it sounds like > we > >>> > have > >>> > > > ways > >>> > > > > > to make sure users don't break in unclear ways. I'll give > >>> others a > >>> > > > chance > >>> > > > > > to respond and barring no additional discussion will get The > >>> > Baptist > >>> > > > > added > >>> > > > > > to the org in npm. i guess we can proceed to the next step > from > >>> > > there. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > >>> > > > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > >>> > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> Reusing the existing package name while adding a deprecation > >>> > > message, > >>> > > > > >> sounds good to me then. > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> Keep in mind we will be releasing both for 3.2.x and 3.3.x > >>> > branches, > >>> > > > so > >>> > > > > >> any > >>> > > > > >> deprecation message should be for versions lower than 3.2. > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> If all agree, the next step will be to add jbmusso to > >>> tinkerpop > >>> > org > >>> > > on > >>> > > > > npm > >>> > > > > >> and add him to the "developers" team. I can't do it, as I'm > >>> not an > >>> > > > > "owner" > >>> > > > > >> of the organization. > >>> > > > > >> Once you have the proper access rights, you should grant > write > >>> > > access > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > > >> package "tinkerpop:developers". > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> Thanks, > >>> > > > > >> Jorge > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < > >>> > > > jbmu...@gmail.com > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > npm (and yarn) now freeze versions aggressively in > >>> package.json > >>> > > and > >>> > > > > >> > package-lock.json or yarn.lock, respectively. Publishing a > >>> new > >>> > > > version > >>> > > > > >> on > >>> > > > > >> > the v3.y.z (v.3.3.2) shouldn't be a concern for most users > >>> > since, > >>> > > > > >> luckily, > >>> > > > > >> > I never published past the 2.y.z major version on npm. > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > What I'm thinking is that we could add a deprecation > message > >>> > that > >>> > > > > users > >>> > > > > >> > will see when installing all releases prior to using > v3.3.2 > >>> when > >>> > > > it's > >>> > > > > >> > published. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/deprecate should be > >>> > > helpful. > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > I don't think that will break anything unless people added > >>> > > > "gremlin": > >>> > > > > >> "*" > >>> > > > > >> > in their package.json, but I guess very few people did > that. > >>> > What > >>> > > > will > >>> > > > > >> > break is example in live docs, such as Microsoft Azure > >>> CosmosDB, > >>> > > > where > >>> > > > > >> > installation requirements are "npm install gremlin": this > >>> will > >>> > > > install > >>> > > > > >> > v3.3.2, and break things. The quick fix for them is to > >>> update > >>> > > their > >>> > > > > doc > >>> > > > > >> to > >>> > > > > >> > "npm install gremlin@v2" - that should work. > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > I also need to deprecate "gremlin-javascript" on npm (that > >>> lib > >>> > > still > >>> > > > > >> gets > >>> > > > > >> > downloaded!), since I was pushing using this name before I > >>> was > >>> > > > donated > >>> > > > > >> the > >>> > > > > >> > "gremlin" package name (I think 2-3 years ago). That'll be > >>> the > >>> > > > second > >>> > > > > >> time > >>> > > > > >> > this package name is transferred, actually - back in the > >>> days, > >>> > it > >>> > > > was > >>> > > > > a > >>> > > > > >> > Node.js/JVM bridge using node-java. > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > Another option is to publish under "@tinkerpop/gremlin", > >>> but I > >>> > > think > >>> > > > > >> it's > >>> > > > > >> > best if we can force people to no longer use the current > >>> > "gremlin" > >>> > > > > >> package, > >>> > > > > >> > and use the official GLV, also under that same name. > Having > >>> many > >>> > > > > package > >>> > > > > >> > names will add a lot of confusion in the next month/years, > >>> and I > >>> > > > think > >>> > > > > >> it's > >>> > > > > >> > best to risk breaking few things in the short term rather > >>> than > >>> > > > adding > >>> > > > > *a > >>> > > > > >> > lot* of confusion on the long term. > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > Jean-Baptiste > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >>> > > > > spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > >> > wrote: > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > It stinks that we would break 3K+ downloads. I don't > know > >>> the > >>> > > npm > >>> > > > > >> > > environment too well. Can a break be expected for > people? > >>> The > >>> > > > > current > >>> > > > > >> > > version of https://www.npmjs.com/package/gremlin is at > >>> 2.6.0 > >>> > > and > >>> > > > we > >>> > > > > >> > would > >>> > > > > >> > > publish at 3.x which people could expect as a breaking > >>> change, > >>> > > no? > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > >>> > > > > >> > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > >> > > wrote: > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> > > > Now that the JavaScript GLV has been merged, it will > be > >>> nice > >>> > > to > >>> > > > > >> have an > >>> > > > > >> > > > official pre-release (RC / beta) on the npm package > >>> manager > >>> > as > >>> > > > > soon > >>> > > > > >> as > >>> > > > > >> > > > possible to allow users to start giving it a try. > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > The package name identifier in the package.json is > >>> currently > >>> > > > > >> > > > gremlin-javascript <https://www.npmjs.com/package > >>> > > > > >> /gremlin-javascript>, > >>> > > > > >> > > > which is under the tinkerpop organization created by > >>> > Stephen: > >>> > > > > >> > > > https://www.npmjs.com/org/tinkerpop > >>> > > > > >> > > > npm orgs are a nice feature as it let's you handle the > >>> team > >>> > > > > members > >>> > > > > >> > that > >>> > > > > >> > > > can be collaborators (publish versions). > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > Jean-Baptiste offered > >>> > > > > >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/tin > >>> kerpop/pull/695#issuecomment- > >>> > > > > >> 358482362> > >>> > > > > >> > to > >>> > > > > >> > > > transfer ownership of gremlin < > >>> > https://www.npmjs.com/package > >>> > > > > >> /gremlin> > >>> > > > > >> > > > package to TinkerPop, so we can publish the GLV under > >>> that > >>> > > > package > >>> > > > > >> > name. > >>> > > > > >> > > My > >>> > > > > >> > > > only concern would be to break the functionality for > >>> current > >>> > > > > users, > >>> > > > > >> as > >>> > > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > > >> > > > existent package has 3K downloads per month. I would > >>> prefer > >>> > to > >>> > > > > >> include > >>> > > > > >> > a > >>> > > > > >> > > > message on the gremlin package explaining the > difference > >>> > with > >>> > > > > >> > > > gremlin-javascript (or recommending the GLV for future > >>> > > > > development), > >>> > > > > >> > but > >>> > > > > >> > > I > >>> > > > > >> > > > don't feel strongly either way. > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >>> > > > > >> > > > Jorge > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
