I agree with Dan and Wayne
+1 for qualified releases (alpha, beta, RC, etc…) that are working toward the
full blow release but aren't intended to be that.
-1 for the actual releases.
And I don't care if the next 3.1.0-alpha is alpha-2 or alpha-4: what I care is
that it is not alpha-1 any more
+1 for pre-releases (RC, etc)
-1 for actual releases
(non-binding)
/Anders
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.frwrote:
I agree with Dan and Wayne
+1 for qualified releases (alpha, beta, RC, etc…) that are working
toward the
full blow release but aren't
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Chris Graham wrote:
What do we currently do for plugins?
What do we currently do for core?
Is there in difference in the approach taken?
No difference. In each case we currently respin failed votes reusing the
version number until we get an actual successful vote.
Perfect. Thx
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.frwrote:
MNG-5482 fixed: ok for me to go for take 4
when a plugin cannot be loaded due to missing Sonatype Aether class, hint
url
will be
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
Thank you Stephen for taking the time to explain.
To me, the key critical bits are:
1. The full normal tag is created, and deleted if failed. If the release
process fails (as in release:prepare/release:perform) we often have to
delete the tag and manually re-run it anyway.
2. The copying process
On 30 May 2013 10:30, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Stephen for taking the time to explain.
To me, the key critical bits are:
1. The full normal tag is created, and deleted if failed. If the release
process fails (as in release:prepare/release:perform) we often have to
One more thing to consider:
It's a huge change; as if you do not delete, you now have broken 'releases'
in a SCM somwhere, and that is radically different to what is currently
there.
I should be able to check anything out now from a tag, build it and have it
work.
If we allow broken tags, then
Are you saying that tags for 2.1 and 2.2.0 of Maven itself should be
deleted because those versions are broken? A tag isn't a guarantee of
correctness/non-brokenness, it's just a *permanent* record of what a
particular version contained. The concept of immutability is pretty core to
Maven (at
As far as the ASF is concerned, from a legal perspective, the tag is not a
release.
The only release is the src.tar.gz in the dist folder or the archives.
Tags and binaries are simply a convenience for users.
Whether that is something that is important to the Maven community is a
different
On 30 May 2013 11:38, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
When I first witnessed the deletion of tags
and re-spinning of versions some months ago it was the most disturbing
thing that's happened to me since I found out that Santa Claus wasn't real.
WHAT THE F*CK!!! Are you suggesting to
No, by their own rules, if the vote passed, then it's 'valid' release.
That fact that we have more than one release of anything means that we
sometimes get it wrong.
-Chris
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that tags for 2.1 and 2.2.0 of
Nicely pointed out.
If a release is strictly speaking, the source bundle, then I have even less
of an objection to respinning a release.
-Chris
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as the ASF is concerned, from a legal perspective,
Point missed. You said:
It's a huge change; as if you do not delete, you now have broken 'releases'
in a SCM somwhere, and that is radically different to what is currently
there.
And my point was, it's no change at all, there are already broken
releases (without the quotes) in an SCM
No, not at all.
We're talking about removing the latest tag whilst in the process of voting.
My reading of what you wrote, was that you were suggesting to retroactively go
back and remove tags that are not the latest release.
Which I believe is against the apache rules.
-Chris
Sent from my
No, I'd cut off my own hand with a blunt teaspoon before I did that.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
No, not at all.
We're talking about removing the latest tag whilst in the process of
voting.
My reading of what you wrote, was that you were
Hi all!
The spdy protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY) is getting more and
more tracking and giving some good performance benefits virtually for
free. I was wondering if anybody knows if the http libraries used by Maven
for the various requests (wagon and others) already support spdy or if
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
page created
improvements welcome
Regards,
Hervé
Le jeudi 30 mai 2013 09:10:50 Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
Perfect. Thx
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.frwrote:
MNG-5482 fixed: ok for me
Ok, we're just waiting now for Stephen to summarize the vote and then when we
figure out what to call it I'll roll out the release.
On May 30, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY herve.bout...@free.fr wrote:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
page created
Let me rephrase my vote:
+1 for qualified releases
-1 for actual releases
Robert
Op Wed, 29 May 2013 19:07:59 +0200 schreef Robert Scholte
rfscho...@apache.org:
-1 (binding) on actual releases
Robert
Op Wed, 29 May 2013 15:20:17 +0200 schreef Daniel Kulp
dk...@apache.org:
+1 for
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connolly ... wrote:
And I am considering whether I want to change my vote ;-)
I am as well. Fred's comments like:
but I'm not confused by the absence
of 2.7.3 in any way shape or form.
and
The concept of immutability is pretty core to
Maven (at
I will be counting spilt votes like this as the actual release vote... If
we want to finesse for alpha and beta after the principle for releases is
established, we can have another vote...
So to clarify: Robert's vote is currently
-1 reuse version numbers when respinning
On Thursday, 30 May
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Wayne Fay wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connolly ... wrote:
And I am considering whether I want to change my vote ;-)
Nope I'm sticking with
+1 no reusing version numbers
After Fred pointed out the immutability thing and given that eg tomcat
You are the release manager. My vote on respinning specifically stated that
any releases in progress, the release manager can decide.
If it were me I'd call it 3.1.0-beta-1 as we have had enough eyes by now
that its better than alpha... I'd also be happy going straight for the
3.1.0 end game...
I'm going to stick to alpha-1. No one has looked at it save 10 people which
doesn't, to me, constitute any reasonably sized population. I'll roll it out in
the morning.
On May 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
You are the release manager. My vote
GitHub user mfriedenhagen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/24
Surefire 999 annotation based
Hello @krosenvold,
as suggested in [your
Go for it!
(Aside: not sure that we'll get that much more eyes for 3.1.0-alpha-x... I
think the eyes will only hit it when we get to 3.1.0...)
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'm going to stick to alpha-1. No one has looked at it save 10 people
which doesn't, to me, constitute
Greetings,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
(Aside: not sure that we'll get that much more eyes for 3.1.0-alpha-x... I
think the eyes will only hit it when we get to 3.1.0...)
It would be nice if someone sent pull requests to Jenkins so
This discussion about respins is really strange to me. I've been
cutting releases, with Maven, at Apache, for years now. And all of
them have reused version numbers for respins. And all of them have
carefully used staging technology (old: directories, new: Nexus) to
ensure that artifacts don't
Careful there Stephen, we are talking process here, not the specifics of
the git implementation.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Wayne Fay wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connolly ...
I don't know what you mean by send pull requests to Jenkins, if you're
talking about Apache's Jenkins instance or something more general from the
Jenkins project
but I'm interested by the it would be auto-installable objective at least on
Apache's Jenkins instance
so I'll read any pointer to
30 matches
Mail list logo
