Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-03-01 Thread Mirko Friedenhagen 
Hello everybody,

maybe I overlooked the answer to the question in the *subject* in the
mail thread. I am all fine with Christian Schultes definitions, but
would be really be interested in pulling alphas from repo1/central.
What is the current agreement here?

So +1 for publishing to central from my side. I am not willing to
include repository.apache.org/.../maven-staging-123 or something in
our ci setup but installing here-to-stay alphas would be feasible for
me.

Just my 2 cents :-)


On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Christian Schulte  wrote:
> Am 02/26/17 um 13:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
>> Even if we had a -1 as long as I have the binding votes *as release
>> manager* it would be my call whether to release or not.
>>
>> Now *personally* I much rather release with consensus, but any committer
>> can step up to be release manager for any of our components, so I would
>> prefer if we can agree our current position (which we can agree to change
>> in the future if needed) and just run with that.
>>
>> For me:
>>
>> * alpha is also about saying "we are not closed to adding something else
>> before beta... but we will think hard on any proposed additions"
>>
>> * beta is about saying "only important bug fixes... or really low risk bug
>> fixes after careful evaluation"
>>
>> * RC is "last chance to find showstoppers only"... if no showstopper then
>> we drop and cut the release for real
>>
>
> We should document that somewhere. I am used to some different meaning.
>
> alpha:
> Development not finished yet. More commits to come. Everything can
> happen. It's just a label external entities can refer to in a stable way
> (like in JIRA - instead of having to refer to e.g. the snapshot from
> yesterday 3 hours after commit xyz). The classifier could as well be an
> SCM id (like -alpha-svnrevision or -alpha-uglygithash).
>
> beta:
> Development is finished. Seeking for testing. Developers will only fix
> bugs, if there are any. Just the final steps needed to get things ready
> for release.
>
> RC:
> Same meaning Stephen described. The RC already is the final release.
> When the SCM allows it, you normally rename the RC tag removing the RC
> and just rebuild that for the final release. This is what you will be
> paying for. Point of no return. Nothing can be removed afterwards - just
> deprecations or additions to come in the next development cycle. Seeking
> for a major review/final testing.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christian
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Christian Schulte 
Am 02/26/17 um 13:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> Even if we had a -1 as long as I have the binding votes *as release
> manager* it would be my call whether to release or not.
> 
> Now *personally* I much rather release with consensus, but any committer
> can step up to be release manager for any of our components, so I would
> prefer if we can agree our current position (which we can agree to change
> in the future if needed) and just run with that.
> 
> For me:
> 
> * alpha is also about saying "we are not closed to adding something else
> before beta... but we will think hard on any proposed additions"
> 
> * beta is about saying "only important bug fixes... or really low risk bug
> fixes after careful evaluation"
> 
> * RC is "last chance to find showstoppers only"... if no showstopper then
> we drop and cut the release for real
> 

We should document that somewhere. I am used to some different meaning.

alpha:
Development not finished yet. More commits to come. Everything can
happen. It's just a label external entities can refer to in a stable way
(like in JIRA - instead of having to refer to e.g. the snapshot from
yesterday 3 hours after commit xyz). The classifier could as well be an
SCM id (like -alpha-svnrevision or -alpha-uglygithash).

beta:
Development is finished. Seeking for testing. Developers will only fix
bugs, if there are any. Just the final steps needed to get things ready
for release.

RC:
Same meaning Stephen described. The RC already is the final release.
When the SCM allows it, you normally rename the RC tag removing the RC
and just rebuild that for the final release. This is what you will be
paying for. Point of no return. Nothing can be removed afterwards - just
deprecations or additions to come in the next development cycle. Seeking
for a major review/final testing.

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Stephen Connolly 
Even if we had a -1 as long as I have the binding votes *as release
manager* it would be my call whether to release or not.

Now *personally* I much rather release with consensus, but any committer
can step up to be release manager for any of our components, so I would
prefer if we can agree our current position (which we can agree to change
in the future if needed) and just run with that.

For me:

* alpha is also about saying "we are not closed to adding something else
before beta... but we will think hard on any proposed additions"

* beta is about saying "only important bug fixes... or really low risk bug
fixes after careful evaluation"

* RC is "last chance to find showstoppers only"... if no showstopper then
we drop and cut the release for real

On Sun 26 Feb 2017 at 11:48, Karl Heinz Marbaise  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 26/02/17 12:22, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > now I see your reasoning
> >
> > 3.3.n were expected to be final quality: they were not, they were
> dropped (vote
> > result was -1, result sent to trash)
>
> That is the difference here. The alpha-1 at the moment does not have any
> -1 yet...(not that I seen one, correct please if I'm oversight
> something)...
>
> So it should be released and published to central.
>
> If we have a -1 than this shouldn't be published to central cause we
> have found issues which prevent using as a release...
>
>
> >
> > 3.5.0-alpha-n is expected to be alpha quality: from tests, we have the
> alpha
> > quality (IMHO even more quality, but not final quality), then the vote
> will be
> > positive *for an alpha* and we'll publish the result
>
> Agreed..
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le dimanche 26 février 2017, 11:44:48 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:58:24 +0100, Manfred Moser
> >>
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All
> components
> >>> and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this
> >>> allows for clean testing, embedding and so on.
> >>>
> >>> We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing
> this.
> >>
> >> Well, Karl Heinz's link only shows those which were deployed, not the
> ones
> >> which weren't.
> >> Also, we've skipped a lot of versions in the 3.3.x, because we had a
> >> different approach: just make that 3.3.n and simply burn it if there are
> >> issues. We could have called this release 3.5.0, we see some issues and
> >> decide if that should block the release.
> >>
> >> The jansi temp files might be a blocker for me if we are going to
> publish
> >> this version.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >>> Manfred
> >>>
> >>> Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:
>  So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?
> 
>  (I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release
> soon
>  anyway, but more from the principal POV)
> 
>  Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on
>  some
>  of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a
> need
>  to
>  update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that
> be
>  possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
>  On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte 
> 
>  wrote:
> > It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
> > there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
> > motive plugins to depend on alphas.
> >
> > AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
> > http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.
> >
> > This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central
> > (we've
> > seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could
> > belong
> > to that group.
> >
> > Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries
> > and
> > applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in
> > these
> > unofficial release stages.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1
> >
> > to
> >
> >> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> >> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already
> >
> > mentioned).
> >
> >> Using Central:
> >>   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> >>
> >> Using an other repository:
> >>   o Which one?
> >>
> >> Using only dist area? Or something different?
> >>
> >> WDY?
> >
> >> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise 

Hi,

On 26/02/17 12:22, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:

now I see your reasoning

3.3.n were expected to be final quality: they were not, they were dropped (vote
result was -1, result sent to trash)


That is the difference here. The alpha-1 at the moment does not have any 
-1 yet...(not that I seen one, correct please if I'm oversight something)...


So it should be released and published to central.

If we have a -1 than this shouldn't be published to central cause we 
have found issues which prevent using as a release...





3.5.0-alpha-n is expected to be alpha quality: from tests, we have the alpha
quality (IMHO even more quality, but not final quality), then the vote will be
positive *for an alpha* and we'll publish the result


Agreed..


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise



Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 26 février 2017, 11:44:48 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:58:24 +0100, Manfred Moser

 wrote:

Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All components
and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this
allows for clean testing, embedding and so on.

We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing this.


Well, Karl Heinz's link only shows those which were deployed, not the ones
which weren't.
Also, we've skipped a lot of versions in the 3.3.x, because we had a
different approach: just make that 3.3.n and simply burn it if there are
issues. We could have called this release 3.5.0, we see some issues and
decide if that should block the release.

The jansi temp files might be a blocker for me if we are going to publish
this version.

Robert


Manfred

Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:

So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?

(I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
anyway, but more from the principal POV)

Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on
some
of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need
to
update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte 

wrote:

It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
motive plugins to depend on alphas.

AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.

This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central
(we've
seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could
belong
to that group.

Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries
and
applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in
these
unofficial release stages.

Robert

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise

 wrote:

Hi,

based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1


to


Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already


mentioned).


Using Central:
  o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.

Using an other repository:
  o Which one?

Using only dist area? Or something different?

WDY?



Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%2
0AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22>>>

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

--


Sent from my phone


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Hervé BOUTEMY 
now I see your reasoning

3.3.n were expected to be final quality: they were not, they were dropped (vote 
result was -1, result sent to trash)

3.5.0-alpha-n is expected to be alpha quality: from tests, we have the alpha 
quality (IMHO even more quality, but not final quality), then the vote will be 
positive *for an alpha* and we'll publish the result

Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 26 février 2017, 11:44:48 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:58:24 +0100, Manfred Moser
> 
>  wrote:
> > Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All components
> > and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this
> > allows for clean testing, embedding and so on.
> > 
> > We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing this.
> 
> Well, Karl Heinz's link only shows those which were deployed, not the ones
> which weren't.
> Also, we've skipped a lot of versions in the 3.3.x, because we had a
> different approach: just make that 3.3.n and simply burn it if there are
> issues. We could have called this release 3.5.0, we see some issues and
> decide if that should block the release.
> 
> The jansi temp files might be a blocker for me if we are going to publish
> this version.
> 
> Robert
> 
> > Manfred
> > 
> > Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:
> >> So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?
> >> 
> >> (I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
> >> anyway, but more from the principal POV)
> >> 
> >> Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on
> >> some
> >> of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need
> >> to
> >> update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
> >> possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
> >> On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte 
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
> >>> there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
> >>> motive plugins to depend on alphas.
> >>> 
> >>> AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
> >>> http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.
> >>> 
> >>> This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central
> >>> (we've
> >>> seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could
> >>> belong
> >>> to that group.
> >>> 
> >>> Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries
> >>> and
> >>> applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in
> >>> these
> >>> unofficial release stages.
> >>> 
> >>> Robert
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >>> 
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> > 
> >>> > based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1
> >>> 
> >>> to
> >>> 
> >>> > Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> >>> > prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already
> >>> 
> >>> mentioned).
> >>> 
> >>> > Using Central:
> >>> >   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> >>> > 
> >>> > Using an other repository:
> >>> >   o Which one?
> >>> > 
> >>> > Using only dist area? Or something different?
> >>> > 
> >>> > WDY?
> >>> 
> >>> > Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> >>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%2
> >>> 0AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22>>> 
> >>> > Kind regards
> >>> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >>> > 
> >>> > -
> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>> 
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >> 
> >> Sent from my phone
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Robert Scholte 
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:58:24 +0100, Manfred Moser  
 wrote:


Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All components  
and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this  
allows for clean testing, embedding and so on.


We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing this.


Well, Karl Heinz's link only shows those which were deployed, not the ones  
which weren't.
Also, we've skipped a lot of versions in the 3.3.x, because we had a  
different approach: just make that 3.3.n and simply burn it if there are  
issues. We could have called this release 3.5.0, we see some issues and  
decide if that should block the release.


The jansi temp files might be a blocker for me if we are going to publish  
this version.


Robert



Manfred

Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:


So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?

(I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
anyway, but more from the principal POV)

Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on  
some
of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need  
to

update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte   
wrote:



It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
motive plugins to depend on alphas.

AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.

This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central  
(we've
seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could  
belong

to that group.

Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries  
and
applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in  
these

unofficial release stages.

Robert

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1  
to

> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already  
mentioned).

>
> Using Central:
>   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
>
> Using an other repository:
>   o Which one?
>
> Using only dist area? Or something different?
>
> WDY?
>
> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
>
>
http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

--

Sent from my phone




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Hervé BOUTEMY 
+1 to release to central

there are general questions on what goes into central (and how central 
contains probably many unused versions of artifacts), but our Maven core 
release is not the right moment to try to work on every question we ignored 
until now

Regards,

Hervé

Le samedi 25 février 2017, 22:55:55 CET Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
> 
> Using Central:
>   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> 
> Using an other repository:
>   o Which one?
> 
> Using only dist area? Or something different?
> 
> WDY?
> 
> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> 
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND
> %20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
> 
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Tibor Digana 
>From my PoV Alpha versions, compared to betas, are those which can be used
only with user's risk unlike betas which are stable however need feedback
to make them yet official release version.
What makes sense among these two versions to deploy alpha to Central?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Manfred Moser-4 [via Maven] <
ml-node+s40175n5900156...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All components
> and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this allows
> for clean testing, embedding and so on.
>
> We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing this.
>
> Manfred
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:
>
> > So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?
> >
> > (I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
> > anyway, but more from the principal POV)
> >
> > Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on
> some
> > of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need
> to
> > update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
> > possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
> > On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
> >> there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
> >> motive plugins to depend on alphas.
> >>
> >> AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
> >> http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.
> >>
> >> This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central
> (we've
> >> seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could
> belong
> >> to that group.
> >>
> >> Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries
> and
> >> applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in
> these
> >> unofficial release stages.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >> <[hidden email] >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1
> to
> >> > Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> >> > prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already
> mentioned).
> >> >
> >> > Using Central:
> >> >   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> >> >
> >> > Using an other repository:
> >> >   o Which one?
> >> >
> >> > Using only dist area? Or something different?
> >> >
> >> > WDY?
> >> >
> >> > Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.
> apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards
> >> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >> >
> >> > -
>
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> >>
> >> --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> 
>
>
>
> --
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-3-5-0-alpha-beta-s-on-Central-
> tp5900105p5900156.html
> To start a new topic under Maven Developers, email
> ml-node+s40175n142166...@n5.nabble.com
> To unsubscribe from Maven Developers, click here
> 
> .
> NAML
> 
>




--
View this message in context: 
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-3-5-0-alpha-beta-s-on-Central-tp5900105p5900196.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Arnaud Héritier 
Let's deploy. I don't see any risk to do it. The version name is clear
enough to warn people to use it for tests only.

(And I am so motivated to update the Jenkins evil plugin ;) )

Le dim. 26 févr. 2017 à 11:00, Karl Heinz Marbaise  a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> my opinion is cleary to deploy to central as we did before...to give
> others a chance to test.
>
> I can often see that many people are automatically downloading Maven
> from Central (download from Apache dist etc. is not a good idea apart
> from that blocked) for example with travis, ship-it, appveyor etc. or
> with Jenkins as well..
>
> To give the best availability is to use Central...
>
> I'm not a fan of making a message into Maven alpha/beta saying this is a
> alpha version...(mvn -V will already print that out). That message will
> not prevent one of using it...
> So in the end it's up to the users to decide to use an alpha/beta or
> later upgrade or not...
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> On 25/02/17 22:55, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
> > Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> > prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
> >
> > Using Central:
> >  o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> >
> > Using an other repository:
> >  o Which one?
> >
> > Using only dist area? Or something different?
> >
> > WDY?
> >
> > Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> >
> >
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
-
Arnaud Héritier
http://aheritier.net
Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
Twitter/Skype : aheritier

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-26 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise 

Hi,

my opinion is cleary to deploy to central as we did before...to give 
others a chance to test.


I can often see that many people are automatically downloading Maven 
from Central (download from Apache dist etc. is not a good idea apart 
from that blocked) for example with travis, ship-it, appveyor etc. or 
with Jenkins as well..


To give the best availability is to use Central...

I'm not a fan of making a message into Maven alpha/beta saying this is a 
alpha version...(mvn -V will already print that out). That message will 
not prevent one of using it...
So in the end it's up to the users to decide to use an alpha/beta or 
later upgrade or not...


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

On 25/02/17 22:55, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:

Hi,

based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).

Using Central:
 o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.

Using an other repository:
 o Which one?

Using only dist area? Or something different?

WDY?

Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Christian Schulte 
Am 02/25/17 um 22:55 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> Hi,
> 
> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to 
> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and 
> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
> 
> Using Central:
>   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> 
> Using an other repository:
>   o Which one?
> 
> Using only dist area? Or something different?
> 
> WDY?
> 
> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> 
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
> 

It's just a matter of naming, IMHO.

3.5.0-RC1
  Should not be deployed to central - just made available for testing.

3.5.0-alpha-1
  A complete release which happens to be classified "alpha".

Back when Maven 2 got released, almost all plugins were classified alpha
or beta.

If we want to ensure no one is embedding an alpha release and then not
upgrade to the non-alpha release, we maybe should log a warning upon
execution (This is an alpha release bla bla bla) and remove that warning
before releasing 3.5.0.

Regards,
-- 
Christian


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Manfred Moser 
Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All components and 
everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this allows for clean 
testing, embedding and so on. 

We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing this. 

Manfred

Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05:

> So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?
> 
> (I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
> anyway, but more from the principal POV)
> 
> Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on some
> of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need to
> update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
> possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
> On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte  wrote:
> 
>> It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
>> there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
>> motive plugins to depend on alphas.
>>
>> AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
>> http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.
>>
>> This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central (we've
>> seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could belong
>> to that group.
>>
>> Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries and
>> applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in these
>> unofficial release stages.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
>> > Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
>> > prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
>> >
>> > Using Central:
>> >   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
>> >
>> > Using an other repository:
>> >   o Which one?
>> >
>> > Using only dist area? Or something different?
>> >
>> > WDY?
>> >
>> > Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
>> >
>> >
>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>>
>> --
> Sent from my phone
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Stephen Connolly 
So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1?

(I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release soon
anyway, but more from the principal POV)

Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on some
of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a need to
update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that be
possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere?
On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte  wrote:

> It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,
> there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should
> motive plugins to depend on alphas.
>
> AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via
> http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.
>
> This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central (we've
> seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could belong
> to that group.
>
> Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries and
> applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in these
> unofficial release stages.
>
> Robert
>
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
> > Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> > prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
> >
> > Using Central:
> >   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
> >
> > Using an other repository:
> >   o Which one?
> >
> > Using only dist area? Or something different?
> >
> > WDY?
> >
> > Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
> >
> >
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Robert Scholte 
It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*,  
there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should  
motive plugins to depend on alphas.


AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via  
http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central.


This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central (we've  
seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could belong  
to that group.


Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries and  
applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in these  
unofficial release stages.


Robert

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise  
 wrote:



Hi,

based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to  
Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and  
prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).


Using Central:
  o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.

Using an other repository:
  o Which one?

Using only dist area? Or something different?

WDY?

Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Guillaume Boué 
I don't see a reason not to push 3.5.0-alpha-1 to Central. It has been 
done this way for previous versions, and makes it more broadly 
applicable for all users.


Guillaume


Le 25/02/2017 à 22:55, Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit :

Hi,

based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to 
Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and 
prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).


Using Central:
 o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.

Using an other repository:
 o Which one?

Using only dist area? Or something different?

WDY?

Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22 



Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org




---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Stephen Connolly 
My view is we should release to central.

I am not so strongly held of this view that I would object to
alternatives... but I do think just dropping the staging repo and pushing
the src to dist would be a bad plan

On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 21:56, Karl Heinz Marbaise  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to
> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and
> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).
>
> Using Central:
>   o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.
>
> Using an other repository:
>   o Which one?
>
> Using only dist area? Or something different?
>
> WDY?
>
> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:
>
>
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone

[DISCUSS] 3.5.0 alpha/beta's on Central

2017-02-25 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise 

Hi,

based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 to 
Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and 
prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already mentioned).


Using Central:
 o Everybody can use it and make tests on it.

Using an other repository:
 o Which one?

Using only dist area? Or something different?

WDY?

Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's:

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%20AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org