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
> >>> > > > > >> > > >
> >>> > > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > > >> >
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to