You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2016/03/20 20:31:33 UTC

[HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Hi beamers,

as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming 
contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code 
cleanup and polishing.

So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing 
the folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.

In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I 
proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with 
0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.

I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, 
let me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.

Thanks
Regards
JB
-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.INVALID>.
As commented on the other thread, I propose we adopt JB's proposal, having
"incubating-SNAPSHOT" style while we are an incubating project.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Not Central, Apache SNAPSHOT repo.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 03/21/2016 11:12 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thinking about this, I would prefer 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, as it will
>>> also indicate that the SNAPSHOTs (on Central) are from incubating.
>>>
>>>
>> There are no snapshots on Central...
>>
>> So, I would propose 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT (and 0.1.0-incubating for
>> the
>>
>>> release).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>>>
>>> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
>>>> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
>>>> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
>>>> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
>>>> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.
>>>>
>>>> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
>>>> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <davor@google.com.invalid
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with
>>>>> "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>>>>>
>>>>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
>>>>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get
>>>>> things
>>>>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier
>>>>> "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
>>>>> will not get that benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
>>>>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
>>>>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
>>>>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is
>>>>> going
>>>>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need
>>>>> the
>>>>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should
>>>>> be
>>>>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
>>>>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
>>>>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really
>>>>> ready
>>>>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly
>>>>> build,
>>>>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the
>>>>> incubation
>>>>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them
>>>>> to
>>>>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
>>>>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id;
>>>>> others
>>>>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the
>>>>> artifact
>>>>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier,
>>>>> however.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is
>>>>> marked
>>>>> as
>>>>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We
>>>>> have
>>>>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It
>>>>> might
>>>>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow.
>>>>> So,
>>>>> we
>>>>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
>>>>> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
>>>>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom
>>>>> goes
>>>>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before
>>>>> the
>>>>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT,
>>>>> and
>>>>> release as 2.0.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi beamers,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>>>>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code
>>>>>> cleanup
>>>>>> and polishing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>>>>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree,
>>>>>> let
>>>>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Not Central, Apache SNAPSHOT repo.

Regards
JB

On 03/21/2016 11:12 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Thinking about this, I would prefer 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, as it will
>> also indicate that the SNAPSHOTs (on Central) are from incubating.
>>
>
> There are no snapshots on Central...
>
> So, I would propose 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT (and 0.1.0-incubating for the
>> release).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>>
>>> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
>>> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
>>> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
>>> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
>>> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.
>>>
>>> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
>>> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with
>>>> "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>>>>
>>>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
>>>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
>>>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2,
>>>> etc.
>>>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier
>>>> "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
>>>> will not get that benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>>>>
>>>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
>>>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
>>>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
>>>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is
>>>> going
>>>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
>>>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
>>>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
>>>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>>>>
>>>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
>>>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really
>>>> ready
>>>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly
>>>> build,
>>>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
>>>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
>>>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
>>>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
>>>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the
>>>> artifact
>>>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier,
>>>> however.
>>>>
>>>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked
>>>> as
>>>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We
>>>> have
>>>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It
>>>> might
>>>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So,
>>>> we
>>>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
>>>> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>>>>
>>>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
>>>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
>>>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
>>>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
>>>> release as 2.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi beamers,
>>>>>
>>>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>>>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code
>>>>> cleanup
>>>>> and polishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing
>>>>> the
>>>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>>>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree,
>>>>> let
>>>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Andreas Veithen <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Thinking about this, I would prefer 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, as it will
> also indicate that the SNAPSHOTs (on Central) are from incubating.
>

There are no snapshots on Central...

So, I would propose 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT (and 0.1.0-incubating for the
> release).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>
>> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
>> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
>> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
>> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
>> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.
>>
>> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
>> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with
>>> "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>>>
>>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
>>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
>>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2,
>>> etc.
>>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier
>>> "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
>>> will not get that benefit.
>>>
>>> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>>>
>>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
>>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
>>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
>>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is
>>> going
>>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>>>
>>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
>>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
>>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
>>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>>>
>>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
>>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really
>>> ready
>>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly
>>> build,
>>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
>>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
>>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>>>
>>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
>>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
>>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the
>>> artifact
>>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier,
>>> however.
>>>
>>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked
>>> as
>>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We
>>> have
>>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It
>>> might
>>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So,
>>> we
>>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
>>> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>>>
>>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>>>
>>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
>>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
>>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
>>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
>>> release as 2.0.0.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi beamers,
>>>>
>>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code
>>>> cleanup
>>>> and polishing.
>>>>
>>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing
>>>> the
>>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>
>>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree,
>>>> let
>>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Thinking about this, I would prefer 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, as it 
will also indicate that the SNAPSHOTs (on Central) are from incubating.

So, I would propose 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT (and 0.1.0-incubating for 
the release).

Regards
JB

On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.
>
> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>>
>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2, etc.
>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
>> will not get that benefit.
>>
>> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>>
>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is going
>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>>
>>
>> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>>
>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>>
>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really ready
>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly build,
>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>>
>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the artifact
>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier, however.
>>
>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked as
>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We have
>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It might
>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So, we
>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
>> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>>
>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>>
>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
>> release as 2.0.0.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi beamers,
>>>
>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code cleanup
>>> and polishing.
>>>
>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing the
>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>>
>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, let
>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Max,

We need the incubating classifier only for releases: it's a requirement 
to notify that the project release is not yet a TLP project but an 
incubator/podling release.

Regarding this, I'm +1 for 0.1.0-SNAPSHOT (and so 0.1.0-incubating for 
the first release).

Regards
JB

On 03/21/2016 12:32 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
> would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
> only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
> it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
> required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.
>
> +1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
> +1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>>
>> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
>> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
>> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2, etc.
>> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
>> will not get that benefit.
>>
>> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>>
>> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
>> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
>> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
>> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is going
>> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>>
>>
>> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>>
>> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
>> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
>> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
>> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>>
>> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
>> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really ready
>> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly build,
>> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
>> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
>> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>>
>> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
>> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
>> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the artifact
>> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier, however.
>>
>> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked as
>> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We have
>> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It might
>> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So, we
>> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
>> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>>
>> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>>
>> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
>> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
>> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
>> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
>> release as 2.0.0.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi beamers,
>>>
>>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code cleanup
>>> and polishing.
>>>
>>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing the
>>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>>
>>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, let
>>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org>.
If we can leave out the "incubating" qualifier for development, I
would very much appreciate that. I like Davor's proposal to append it
only once we release. Apart from the improved Maven version semantics,
it would incorporate the fact that incubating projects are only
required to include the "incubating" qualifier for releases.

+1 for 0.1-SNAPSHOT for development
+1 for 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating for the first release

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".
>
> The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
> [1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
> wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2, etc.
> Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
> will not get that benefit.
>
> Here's a very specific example from [1]:
>
> Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
> where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
> “alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
> “alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is going
> to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.
>
>
> There are several orthogonal decisions here:
>
> 1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
> incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
> sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
> <major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.
>
> 2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
> both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really ready
> for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly build,
> and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
> phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
> carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.
>
> 3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
> "incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
> put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the artifact
> approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier, however.
>
> 4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked as
> 2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We have
> released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It might
> be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So, we
> could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
> clearly that this is a pre-release version.
>
> To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:
>
> Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
> release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
> to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
> first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
> release as 2.0.0.
>
> [1]
> https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi beamers,
>>
>> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
>> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code cleanup
>> and polishing.
>>
>> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing the
>> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>>
>> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
>> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>
>> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, let
>> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>> JB
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

Re: [HEADS UP] Renaming/polishing

Posted by Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.INVALID>.
I believe we'll put ourselves into a corner with "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT".

The format has to be: <major>.<minor>.<incremental>-<qualifier>, as per
[1], i.e., no two dashes. If it is not, Maven resolution will get things
wrong by comparing strings instead of numbers: 10 becomes less than 2, etc.
Maven handles "-SNAPSHOT" qualifier specially; qualifier "-incubating-SNAPSHOT"
will not get that benefit.

Here's a very specific example from [1]:

Take the version release numbers “1.2.3-alpha-2” and “1.2.3-alpha-10,”
where the “alpha-2” build corresponds to the 2nd alpha build, and the
“alpha-10” build corresponds to the 10th alpha build. Even though
“alpha-10” should be considered more recent than “alpha-2,” Maven is going
to sort “alpha-10” before “alpha-2”.


There are several orthogonal decisions here:

1. How much version numbers do we need for now? I argue do don't need the
incremental part before the first stable release -- two numbers should be
sufficient. So, the format, before the first stable release, can be
<major>.<minor>-<qualifier>.

2. I don't think we need "incubating-SNAPSHOT" ever. For the most part,
both qualifiers communicate the same thing -- that this is not really ready
for primetime yet. For example, we can use -SNAPSHOT for the nightly build,
and "-incubating" for the actual releases while we are in the incubation
phase. Snapshots will not get released anywhere -- no reason for them to
carry "incubating" too; we'll just mess up resolution handling.

3. I found many projects in the Incubator that don't actually have
"incubating" in the version part. Some put it in the artifact id; others
put it in the name only; a few don't have it at all. I dislike the artifact
approach, and I'm neutral between name & version. Name is easier, however.

4. When we release the first stable version, I propose that it is marked as
2.0.0. Before that, we'll likely push several pre-release versions. We have
released 1.5.0 in Dataflow recently, and might release a few more. It might
be smarter to leave a few numbers for any such versions of Dataflow. So, we
could start with something like 1.9.0. I think 0.1 communicates more
clearly that this is a pre-release version.

To summarize, I think a good proposal is as follows:

Start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT. This goes into Beam's parent pom.xml. When we
release 0.1, we override it to 0.1-incubating. At that time, the pom goes
to 0.2-SNAPSHOT, and we release it as 0.2-incubating. Sometime before the
first stable release post incubation, we change it to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT, and
release as 2.0.0.

[1]
https://books.sonatype.com/mvnref-book/reference/pom-relationships-sect-pom-syntax.html

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi beamers,
>
> as the project is more and more visible, and we begin to see incoming
> contributions, I think we really have to move forward on the code cleanup
> and polishing.
>
> So, I'm updating PR #46 about renaming the packages and re-organizing the
> folders. I will update the PR by tomorrow.
>
> In the mean time, I sent an e-mail about the version. Right now, I
> proposed 1.5.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. Some expressed to start with
> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>
> I think 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT makes sense. Please, if you disagree, let
> me know, else I will update the version in PR #46.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>