Re: EA versioning

Yup! It will remove any uncertainties about version sequence. And if anything extra needs to be said about the quality of the release, it should be communicated via documentation, README, releaseNotes, or else. Thanks Cos On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:56PM, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > Cos, > > I

Re: EA versioning

Cos, I think you are right, probably we have to release 1.5.0-b1 then stable bug-fix versions will be 1.5.1, 1.5.2... And then next release from master should be 1.6.0. Yes, this should work and then we will not need *final *qualifier. Sergi 2015-12-07 7:23 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik

Re: Weird releases [Was: EA versioning]

It's a test release. I have no clue why it's located at archive dist. It should be removed. Does anybody know how to remove it? On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > Forking of the release schema conversation. I have noticed that official > dist >

Re: Weird releases [Was: EA versioning]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 12:56PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > It's a test release. > I have no clue why it's located at archive dist. > It should be removed. > > Does anybody know how to remove it? I think the only way to remove something from archive is by asking infra@ to do so. Either by a

Re: EA versioning

Cos and Brane, This issue arised not from our feeling of beautiful, but from practical reasons, namely we need to conform existing Maven and OSGi version models at the same time. We did not invent Maven or OSGi, but if we want to play with them well, we have to keep in mind their own quirks and

Re: EA versioning

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 11:30AM, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > Cos and Brane, > > This issue arised not from our feeling of beautiful, but from practical > reasons, > namely we need to conform existing Maven and OSGi version models at the > same time. > > We did not invent Maven or OSGi, but if we

Weird releases [Was: EA versioning]

Forking of the release schema conversation. I have noticed that official dist http://archive.apache.org/dist//ignite/ has 2.2.2-test version. Anyone knows why it is there? Cos signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: EA versioning

Oh, and not to say - JIRA would have to have a corresponding versions. Say right now I see only 1.5 in JIRA and it has 161 unresolved bugs. However, the -b1 release is already voted for and is almost official. Cos On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 03:11PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015

Re: EA versioning

It was fun watching this thread. I don't even know what EA means, but I have to wonder ... what's wrong with releasing 1.5.0-beta? Or does the Java world need its own special terminology for yet another well-established process? :) -- Brane

Re: EA versioning

This is perhaps 12th or so project in my memory that tries to invent the wheel to mark non-stable releases. Most notorious are Linux kernel and JDK. The latter is particularly screwed-up, versioning wise. To date, people are call it JDK1.7 and so on. Anyway... After many bad ideas discussed,

Re: EA versioning

Ok from me, the troublemaker :) Glad that we agreed on a policy. On 1 Dec 2015 19:51, "Yakov Zhdanov" wrote: > Guys, I like the scheme we have come to. > > Will submit apache-ignite-1.5.0-b1-rc1 for vote tomorrow :) > > --Yakov >

Re: EA versioning

Thanks you, Raul, for attracting everyones attention to! :) --Yakov 2015-12-02 0:15 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani : > Ok from me, the troublemaker :) > > Glad that we agreed on a policy.

Re: EA versioning

Thanks, Raul! I like your synthesis. We have already agreed to use 1.5.0-*b1* format for early access builds, but I did not see any opinions about *final* for releases. Does anyone have objections to use *final *qualifier for release builds to conform both OSGi and Maven versioning? Sergi

Re: EA versioning

Guys, We are introduced new version naming strategy, but do not added corresponding tests to GridProductVersionSelfTest. I created issue for this:https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2049 Please fix before ignite-1.5 goes final. -- Alexey Kuznetsov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com

Re: EA versioning

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > Thanks, Raul! I like your synthesis. > > We have already agreed to use 1.5.0-*b1* format for early access builds, > but I did not see any opinions about *final* for releases. > Does anyone have objections to use

Re: EA versioning

2015-12-01 21:55 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > What would the “final” qualifier give us? It gives us correct and consistent versions not only for Maven, but for OSGi as well. Now we will have For Maven 1.5.0 > 1.5.0-b1 For OSGi1.5.0 < 1.5.0-b1 If we will

Re: EA versioning

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > In that case, if we add “.final” suffix, will it satisfy both, Maven and > OSGI worlds? Yep. In fact, "final" in Maven is equivalent to no qualifier. From Javadoc [1]: strings are checked for well-known

Re: EA versioning

What would the “final” qualifier give us? From what I can see, Maven version comparison will work fine without it. Does maven have special handling for the “final” suffix? On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sergi Vladykin

Re: EA versioning

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > What would the “final” qualifier give us? From what I can see, Maven > version comparison will work fine without it. Does maven have special > handling for the “final” suffix? > Yes it does. And OSGi doesn't, so a

Re: EA versioning

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > What would the “final” qualifier give us? From what I can see, Maven > > version comparison will work fine without it. Does maven

Re: EA versioning

Thanks Sergi, In that case I don’t think anyone would object to adding “.final” suffix at the end. Raul, as an OSGI expert, do you confirm? D. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Sergi Vladykin wrote: > 2015-12-01 21:55 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan

Re: EA versioning

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Raul, as an OSGI expert, do you confirm? > Yep, it was my proposal only to add "-final". Just to be clear, this is a Maven qualifier. The maven-bundle-plugin will translate the hyphen to a dot, for compatibility

Re: EA versioning

Guys, I like the scheme we have come to. Will submit apache-ignite-1.5.0-b1-rc1 for vote tomorrow :) --Yakov

EA versioning

Guys, When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that we had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to many reasons. I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper

Re: EA versioning

Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ??? Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number? Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me... On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Guys, > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we

Re: EA versioning

Alexey. We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ??? > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number? > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks

Re: EA versioning

This is how voting for releases works. RC designates that build is under vote. --Yakov 2015-12-01 12:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov : > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ??? > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number? > > Mixing EA and RC in one name -

Re: EA versioning

Ok, now I see. But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead "-rc1"? Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ? On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov wrote: > Alexey. > > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for

Re: EA versioning

AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1 and standard versions, like 1.5.0. According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such as “-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers. This means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than

Re: EA versioning

Dmitriy, Yakov just sent maven output which says that *1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1* *1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final* That's exactly what I was talking about. Sergi 2015-12-01 18:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1

Re: EA versioning

The most promising way which should work for both Maven and OSGi is to use *beta* for EA and use *final *for releases. http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final=1.5.0-beta1 http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0=1.5.0-beta1 Sergi 2015-12-01 18:16 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin

Re: EA versioning

Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning because Maven and OSGi versions are somewhat conflicting as well. See [1] [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final=1.5.0-ea Sergi 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani : > It is different when the

Re: EA versioning

I have got the following output: $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1 1.5.0-final Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison result: 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1 2.

Re: EA versioning

Guys, let's name early access versions as "x.x.x-aN" or "x.x.x-bN". This will give us transparent version comparison. Serj, thanks for a good point! As far as upcoming release I suggest releasing "1.5.0-b1" since in my understanding it is very close to final release and is higher than "betta"

Re: EA versioning

FYI, OSGi sorts version qualifiers lexicographically: http://wiki.osgi.org/wiki/Bundle-Version Sergi 2015-12-01 18:55 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin : > Anton, > > Since we are not going to mix *b1 *with *beta1* this should work well. > > Nevertheless It seems that it will

Re: EA versioning

I asked my question because I never see EA and RC in one name. Only one of them. But seems it is OK to have such name. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > RC means Release Candidate. > After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary

Re: EA versioning

Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice. However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven or version range? --Yakov

Re: EA versioning

It is sad that we are learning from bad examples like hazelcast instead of thinking ourselves and making decisions that fast.. Sergi 2015-12-01 17:41 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov : > Sergi, > > Sounds bad. > I've made decision to use EA looking on Hazelcast's versions (

Re: EA versioning

It is different when the keyword is part of the version (1.1.1.RELEASE), like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE). Maven treats both cases differently. On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" wrote: > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good

Re: EA versioning

Sergi, Sounds bad. I've made decision to use EA looking on Hazelcast's versions ( http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.hazelcast/hazelcast). Seems we have to use 'alpha' or use 'ga' at release. Or ignore this case and recomend users to use explicit version. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:22 PM,

Re: EA versioning

Raul, This is how Maven works, exactly because of that we want to switch to 1.5.0-b1 instead of 1.5.0-ea 1.5.0 > 1.5.0-b1 Sergi 2015-12-01 19:06 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani : > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > > > 1.5.0-ea > 1.5.0 > >