On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:22 PM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > Would a version like "1.9.0.incubating" be feasible? > > > I appreciate the creative idea. :) But it's very non-standard and not with > the spirit of what the version string is for. The "official" document on > versioning is this: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/ > > You are allowed string specifiers, but they are all meant for release > types: dev, beta, etc. I would think that adding a project status qualifier > here would be an abuse of the versioning string for adding metadata. Not > the end of the world, but feels wrong to me and might have repercussions > that I cannot foresee. Otherwise, there is quite a bit of metadata for > Python packages, and we definitely make it clear wherever we can this it is > an ASF incubating project. > > By the way, Apache Airflow has a very minimal description that might not > make it so clear that it is an Apache incubating project. To compare: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/apache-airflow/1.9.0 > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/apache-ariatosca/0.1.1 > > > Thanks. Perhaps if you can make sure that the line with "ARIA is an > incubation project under the Apache Software Foundation > <https://www.apache.org/>.” Is expanded to include the whole DISCLAIMER. > > What do people think? > I think I agree. If we ask that the full disclaimer gets put on the README that generates the landing page for pypi package, that would satisfy any concerns I could see. Technically, if that README appeared in the source release as well you wouldn't have to include a separate DISCLAIMER file. The purpose behind "-incubating" is to make it clear that this is not an endorsed release (whatever that means from a foundation standpoint). It's not meant to encumber or slow down usage of the product by any means. If there's a hardship with adding it, we (the IPMC) want to understand the issue and help come up with a solution rather than mandate following an existing process. > > Regards, > Dave > > >
