[DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>]

Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>]

closing out the 1.0 threads and will start a new 0.1-incubating release thread

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> fair enough - easy enough to recover from - thanks for the direction!
>
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> While its great to see a first release candidate, I'm afraid I've to vote -1
>> on this one because of an absolute Incubator requirement that every release
>> archive
>> must contain the name 'incubating' in the filename... [1], [2]
>>
>> In practice, this means we typically use a incubating *version* for our
>> (maven) artifacts, as long as we're under the Incubator policy.
>>
>> And, because of this, the version range typically used within the incubator
>> is < 1, e.g. 0.1-incubating instead of 1.0-incubating. But of course that is
>> up to the podling itself to decide, as long as the version/file retains
>> 'incubating' in the name.
>>
>> So, my advise is to change the trunk version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT, and
>> then cut a new 0.1-incubating release candidate from that.
>>
>> Oh, and for this one time, I think it is OK to actually delete the release
>> tag 1.0 :)
>>
>> One other suggestion: the DEPENDENCIES file in the root isn't needed or even
>> desired IMO. It is generated automatically by the
>> maven-remote-resources-plugin but has no formal or even legal importance,
>> and is IMO of no real value (meaning: unreliable on its contents).
>>
>> Thanks, Ate
>>
>>
>> On 01/08/2013 11:56 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
>>>
>>> Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Jason Letourneau <jl...@gmail.com>]

fair enough - easy enough to recover from - thanks for the direction!

Jason

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> While its great to see a first release candidate, I'm afraid I've to vote -1
> on this one because of an absolute Incubator requirement that every release
> archive
> must contain the name 'incubating' in the filename... [1], [2]
>
> In practice, this means we typically use a incubating *version* for our
> (maven) artifacts, as long as we're under the Incubator policy.
>
> And, because of this, the version range typically used within the incubator
> is < 1, e.g. 0.1-incubating instead of 1.0-incubating. But of course that is
> up to the podling itself to decide, as long as the version/file retains
> 'incubating' in the name.
>
> So, my advise is to change the trunk version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT, and
> then cut a new 0.1-incubating release candidate from that.
>
> Oh, and for this one time, I think it is OK to actually delete the release
> tag 1.0 :)
>
> One other suggestion: the DEPENDENCIES file in the root isn't needed or even
> desired IMO. It is generated automatically by the
> maven-remote-resources-plugin but has no formal or even legal importance,
> and is IMO of no real value (meaning: unreliable on its contents).
>
> Thanks, Ate
>
>
> On 01/08/2013 11:56 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
>>
>> Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>]

On 01/09/2013 04:08 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> While its great to see a first release candidate, I'm afraid I've to vote -1 on
> this one because of an absolute Incubator requirement that every release archive
> must contain the name 'incubating' in the filename... [1], [2]
>
> In practice, this means we typically use a incubating *version* for our (maven)
> artifacts, as long as we're under the Incubator policy.
>
> And, because of this, the version range typically used within the incubator is <
> 1, e.g. 0.1-incubating instead of 1.0-incubating. But of course that is up to
> the podling itself to decide, as long as the version/file retains 'incubating'
> in the name.
>
> So, my advise is to change the trunk version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT, and
> then cut a new 0.1-incubating release candidate from that.
>
> Oh, and for this one time, I think it is OK to actually delete the release tag
> 1.0 :)
>
> One other suggestion: the DEPENDENCIES file in the root isn't needed or even
> desired IMO. It is generated automatically by the maven-remote-resources-plugin
> but has no formal or even legal importance, and is IMO of no real value
> (meaning: unreliable on its contents).
>
> Thanks, Ate
>
Forgot to provide the references links:

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming

> On 01/08/2013 11:56 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
>> Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> While its great to see a first release candidate, I'm afraid I've to vote -1
> on this one because of an absolute Incubator requirement that every release
> archive
> must contain the name 'incubating' in the filename... [1], [2]
>
> In practice, this means we typically use a incubating *version* for our
> (maven) artifacts, as long as we're under the Incubator policy.
>
> And, because of this, the version range typically used within the incubator
> is < 1, e.g. 0.1-incubating instead of 1.0-incubating. But of course that is
> up to the podling itself to decide, as long as the version/file retains
> 'incubating' in the name.
>
> So, my advise is to change the trunk version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT, and
> then cut a new 0.1-incubating release candidate from that.
>
> Oh, and for this one time, I think it is OK to actually delete the release
> tag 1.0 :)
>
> One other suggestion: the DEPENDENCIES file in the root isn't needed or even
> desired IMO. It is generated automatically by the
> maven-remote-resources-plugin but has no formal or even legal importance,
> and is IMO of no real value (meaning: unreliable on its contents).
>
> Thanks, Ate

For what it's worth, this is why we work through these issues on such
a small release that is easy to re-spin.  There will be more to learn
as we start to do this with code.


>
>
> On 01/08/2013 11:56 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
>>
>> Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Streams Master POM 1.0 Release

[Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>]

Hi Jason,

While its great to see a first release candidate, I'm afraid I've to vote -1 on 
this one because of an absolute Incubator requirement that every release archive
must contain the name 'incubating' in the filename... [1], [2]

In practice, this means we typically use a incubating *version* for our (maven) 
artifacts, as long as we're under the Incubator policy.

And, because of this, the version range typically used within the incubator is < 
1, e.g. 0.1-incubating instead of 1.0-incubating. But of course that is up to 
the podling itself to decide, as long as the version/file retains 'incubating' 
in the name.

So, my advise is to change the trunk version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT, and 
then cut a new 0.1-incubating release candidate from that.

Oh, and for this one time, I think it is OK to actually delete the release tag 
1.0 :)

One other suggestion: the DEPENDENCIES file in the root isn't needed or even 
desired IMO. It is generated automatically by the maven-remote-resources-plugin 
but has no formal or even legal importance, and is IMO of no real value 
(meaning: unreliable on its contents).

Thanks, Ate

On 01/08/2013 11:56 PM, Jason Letourneau wrote:
> Discussion thread for Streams Master POM 1.0 Release
>