You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> on 2016/12/28 01:18:40 UTC
Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Hello,
The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
coordinates:
<groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
<artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
<version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
"incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
(I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
"Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
"FreeMarker").
*: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
"-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
also stuck at that version for some reason.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Based on my experience, the term "incubating" is inferred (without my
digging around) as a beta/alpha quality release. Things may change, not
necessarily for production usage. It ends up giving a negative connotation
to the quality of the release contents, instead of clearly defining it as a
release that may have ASF-incompatible contents.
I can say, specific to the case of freemarker, I had two different vendors
tell me (when I asked why they were using older versions) that the ASF
releases weren't ready to be used, and they pointed to the incubating
suffix. So I unfortunately know the problem Daniel's bringing up. I'll
also say that the problem isn't specific to freemarker, so while Daniel's
points come across for his own selfish means, my points are to make this a
broader catch. I've even had people tell me they won't use certain TLP
software because it contains incubating contents (granted, I won't use
something that explicitly says alpha in it).
I get the points Martjin's trying to make. However, I feel the scope of
this is beyond any one podling. How can we expect a community to grow
around something being labeled as "not ready for prime time?" I also
challenge the notion of incubating being a warning sign of failing. I see
more TLPs retire than I see incubating projects retire.
I'll point out that this silly maven "process" is not carried over to other
technologies. So when, for instance, projects are pushed via pypi, they
don't include -incubating.
John
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:41 PM Emilian Bold <em...@apache.org> wrote:
> I wonder how much analysys there was done before picking this -incubating
> suffix.
>
> It's really ASF specific and I doubt that most end users know what it is
> supposed to mean.
>
> An embryo undergoes incubation so it's easy to see how -incubating is
> associated with an alpha product.
>
>
> În joi, 29 dec. 2016 la 21:44 Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com
> >
> a scris:
>
> > You are trying to fix the wrong thing. The whole idea of the
> >
> > -incubating moniker is to communicate to end users that the project is
> >
> > inside the incubator, and can fail incubation. The only and best way
> >
> > to get rid of the -incubating scheme is to *graduate*.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't remain in the incubator hiding in your community, but fix those
> >
> > licensing issues, grow your community, reach out to the wider
> >
> > incubator community outside your 3 monthly report and hook up with
> >
> > other Apache projects for collaboration.
> >
> >
> >
> > Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
> >
> > learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
> >
> >
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> >
> > > coordinates:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> >
> > > <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> >
> > > <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> >
> > > it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> >
> > > that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> >
> > > years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> >
> > > "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> >
> > > we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> >
> > > on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> >
> > > (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> >
> > > less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> >
> > > would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> >
> > > downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> >
> > > anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> >
> > > "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> >
> > > "FreeMarker").
> >
> > >
> >
> > > *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> >
> > > will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> >
> > > version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> >
> > > any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> >
> > > believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> >
> > > queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> >
> > > that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> >
> > > versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> >
> > > non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> >
> > > "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> >
> > > also stuck at that version for some reason.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > Daniel Dekany
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
Thursday, December 29, 2016, 9:41:20 PM, Emilian Bold wrote:
�n joi, 29 dec. 2016 la 21:44 Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
a scris:
> You are trying to fix the wrong thing. The whole idea of the
> -incubating moniker is to communicate to end users that the project
> is inside the incubator, and can fail incubation.
That argument might makes sense for some projects that start their
life here, but in this case it doesn't apply, because the question now
is not if people dare to use FreeMarker, but if which version of it
are they using. Even if we assume the worse, that the incubation fails
and the whole project is terminated and so on, how are users better of
with 2.3.23 (the last non-Apache release) than with 2.3.25-incubating?
I don't see any additional risk in using 2.3.25-incubating versus
2.3.23. (I only see addition risk the other way around.)
> The only and best way to get rid of the -incubating scheme is to
> *graduate*.
Graduating FreeMarker is a different topic, and we will start a thread
for that when there's a consensus regarding that inside the PPMC. The
Maven version suffix is a problem that can be addressed separately.
That we couldn't graduate yet, doesn't make the releases less stable
than the earlier releases from outside Apache.
> Don't remain in the incubator hiding in your community, but fix those
> licensing issues, grow your community, reach out to the wider
> incubator community outside your 3 monthly report and hook up with
> other Apache projects for collaboration.
>>
> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@apache.org>.
I wonder how much analysys there was done before picking this -incubating
suffix.
It's really ASF specific and I doubt that most end users know what it is
supposed to mean.
An embryo undergoes incubation so it's easy to see how -incubating is
associated with an alpha product.
În joi, 29 dec. 2016 la 21:44 Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
a scris:
> You are trying to fix the wrong thing. The whole idea of the
>
> -incubating moniker is to communicate to end users that the project is
>
> inside the incubator, and can fail incubation. The only and best way
>
> to get rid of the -incubating scheme is to *graduate*.
>
>
>
> Don't remain in the incubator hiding in your community, but fix those
>
> licensing issues, grow your community, reach out to the wider
>
> incubator community outside your 3 monthly report and hook up with
>
> other Apache projects for collaboration.
>
>
>
> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
>
> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
>
>
>
> Martijn
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> >
>
> > The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
>
> > coordinates:
>
> >
>
> > <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
>
> > <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
>
> > <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
>
> >
>
> > The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
>
> > it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
>
> > that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
>
> > years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
>
> >
>
> > As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
>
> > "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
>
> > we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
>
> > on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
>
> > (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
>
> > less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
>
> > would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
>
> > downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
>
> > anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
>
> > "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
>
> > "FreeMarker").
>
> >
>
> > *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
>
> > will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
>
> > version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
>
> > any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
>
> > believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
>
> > queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
>
> > that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
>
> > versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
>
> > non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
>
> > "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
>
> > also stuck at that version for some reason.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Daniel Dekany
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the link Martjin! Definitely a late night reading exercise.
Maybe since Jukka and Bertrand are around they can give us feedback as well
:-)
Either way will digest.
John
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:50 AM Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> For reference, please read this thread from 2008:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> It has all the arguments for and against the -incubating versioning
> label, and why the disclaimer exists. Warning: it is long (I haven't
> even reached the conclusion after about an hour of reading).
>
> It goes of a bit about releasing through Maven, and some quibles with
> central repository management and releases and other politics, but it
> should be enlightening to see all positions. Read it with an open mind
> and don't look only for the bits that support your position, but try
> to understand the other side as well.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
> >> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
> >>
> >
> > In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully pass
> a
> > graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
> > mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
> > decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some
> committers.
> > However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the
> concern
> > that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the
> stability
> > of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not
> probably
> > affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
> >
> > Jacopo
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'll point out that the link Martjin pointed to is a follow up conversation
after the vote thread that originally introduced allowing podling artifacts
to be distributed via Maven.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/43c243fcdc50777cb521e39fefed93f14e3ccb5c869bc02447ae68cd@1221028489@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Now that I've seen these threads, I understand the perspective our
forefathers had when applying these restrictions. And I'll reiterate my
concerns with it - we created a policy that applied specifically to maven
artifacts, that need not apply to other distribution mechanisms - PyPi,
NuGet, etc. Though I'm not sure we've allowed or disallowed such a thing.
Anyways back to dissecting the thread. Here are some interesting notes
(and commentary):
---
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a403eb753829ba3cd6a5023ebe0ac866deb9eba1cedefb17a84b4001@1222561027@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
William Rowe, clarifying that an end user shouldn't have to be worried
about an incubating dependency. Its on the distributor if it goes *poof*.
It also reiterates a point that's been stated - consumers may consider
-incubating to be a sign of stability, robustness but in actuality it's
purely an ASF term.
Here's another note, RE success of podlings. We have 64 active podlings.
In total there have been 276 podlings, of which 44 have retired. The
concern raised and why -incubating is used is to call out that a podling
may fail and retire.
There are 177 TLPs. We have 41 projects in the attic, DeviceMap joining
shortly (just not listed on https://attic.apache.org/) so that makes 42
projects in the attic. The numbers are about on par for the likelihood of
a project failing to graduate as it is to fail as a TLP.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/de64b98fe7d666f88fb3741bb267e8f523e61d2f9965e1227cb09cb9@1222585509@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Niclas poses some great points, including voting no to a podling that's
clearly struggling. Sounds like a better solution than additional
requirements.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/36f6477b5a211d6a7374fe3b7f5640dc31f9bd3fd0e2be337eecc2ea@1222817549@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Upayavira makes a claim of something I have long wondered - what exactly do
we mean by "endorsed"? "You need to clarify what "endorsed" means. It _is_
endorsed as "opensource", but not as "open development". " This statement
is later followed up by notions that the ASF endorses a release when the
binding votes pass, and that we make no claims that a podling will stick
around. This is even true of a TLP. Though I suspect once a project has
reached a certain level of maturity, there's always someone willing to help
out. Its even followed up with a notion from Daniel Kulp, where we may
piss off users by changing maven coordinates.
---
There's a few things that this seems to point out.
- We're not approving releases that are way out of line from policies and
procedures. We call out when a podling has incorrect licensing claims, is
distributing files that shouldn't be distributed.
- A podling's release is endorsed, while the project behind that release is
not endorsed.
- Users of the podling's release
I think at this point we should start a vote on removing the -incubating
requirement on maven artifacts. I'll wait until Monday at least to start
the vote, due to remaining holiday time.
John
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:00 AM Raphael Bircher <rb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Am .12.2016, 15:40 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>:
>
> > The original question in this thread is much less generic than in the
> > linked one though, so it's certainly easier to answer. Just as a
> > reminder, the specialities are these:
> >
> > - This project already have suffixless releases from before
> > incubation, which are widely used. If the incubation fails, those
> > versions won't be any better that the incubating ones. After all, ASF
> > won't go around and delete those releases from the Maven Central,
> > from SF.net, etc.
> >
> > - The project doesn't have an org.apache.* Maven groupId, nor a such
> > Java package (in 2.x.x, because of backward compatibility, and we
> > are talking about 2.x.x only here). So as far as I see it's quite
> > unlikely that the user will see "Apache" without "incubating"
> > because we have removed it from the *Maven* version number, at least
> > if we change <name>Apache FreeMarker</name> in the POM to
> > <name>Apache FreeMarker (incubating)</name>.
> >
>
> For my point of view, this would be the right solution. As I understand
> (incubating) should be added to the Project name and not to the version
> number.
>
> Regards, Raphael
>
>
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.wordpress.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Raphael Bircher <rb...@gmail.com>.
Hi all
Am .12.2016, 15:40 Uhr, schrieb Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>:
> The original question in this thread is much less generic than in the
> linked one though, so it's certainly easier to answer. Just as a
> reminder, the specialities are these:
>
> - This project already have suffixless releases from before
> incubation, which are widely used. If the incubation fails, those
> versions won't be any better that the incubating ones. After all, ASF
> won't go around and delete those releases from the Maven Central,
> from SF.net, etc.
>
> - The project doesn't have an org.apache.* Maven groupId, nor a such
> Java package (in 2.x.x, because of backward compatibility, and we
> are talking about 2.x.x only here). So as far as I see it's quite
> unlikely that the user will see "Apache" without "incubating"
> because we have removed it from the *Maven* version number, at least
> if we change <name>Apache FreeMarker</name> in the POM to
> <name>Apache FreeMarker (incubating)</name>.
>
For my point of view, this would be the right solution. As I understand
(incubating) should be added to the Project name and not to the version
number.
Regards, Raphael
--
Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
Saturday, December 31, 2016, 5:33:19 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Just to level set. I don't think its fair to expect a special policy for a
> single podling.
To be clear, I'm just asking a question, since there's no written
policy regarding the Maven version number as far as I know. So I
suppose the Incubator PMC is free to decide this for the individual
release. Of course, I prefer to find out the feelings earlier than the
release voting.
Anyway, if there will be a written policy, then note that the
situation is the same for any (Java-library-) poddling that was a
widely used project before trying to join Apache.
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
>> The original question in this thread is much less generic than in the
>> linked one though, so it's certainly easier to answer. Just as a
>> reminder, the specialities are these:
>>
>> - This project already have suffixless releases from before
>> incubation, which are widely used. If the incubation fails, those
>> versions won't be any better that the incubating ones. After all, ASF
>> won't go around and delete those releases from the Maven Central,
>> from SF.net, etc.
>>
>> - The project doesn't have an org.apache.* Maven groupId, nor a such
>> Java package (in 2.x.x, because of backward compatibility, and we
>> are talking about 2.x.x only here). So as far as I see it's quite
>> unlikely that the user will see "Apache" without "incubating"
>> because we have removed it from the *Maven* version number, at least
>> if we change <name>Apache FreeMarker</name> in the POM to
>> <name>Apache FreeMarker (incubating)</name>.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>>
>> Saturday, December 31, 2016, 1:50:02 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>
>> > For reference, please read this thread from 2008:
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > It has all the arguments for and against the -incubating versioning
>> > label, and why the disclaimer exists. Warning: it is long (I haven't
>> > even reached the conclusion after about an hour of reading).
>> >
>> > It goes of a bit about releasing through Maven, and some quibles with
>> > central repository management and releases and other politics, but it
>> > should be enlightening to see all positions. Read it with an open mind
>> > and don't look only for the bits that support your position, but try
>> > to understand the other side as well.
>> >
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
>> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
>> >> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
>> >>> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully
>> pass a
>> >> graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
>> >> mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
>> >> decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some
>> committers.
>> >> However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the
>> concern
>> >> that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the
>> stability
>> >> of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not
>> probably
>> >> affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
>> >>
>> >> Jacopo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Just to level set. I don't think its fair to expect a special policy for a
single podling.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> The original question in this thread is much less generic than in the
> linked one though, so it's certainly easier to answer. Just as a
> reminder, the specialities are these:
>
> - This project already have suffixless releases from before
> incubation, which are widely used. If the incubation fails, those
> versions won't be any better that the incubating ones. After all, ASF
> won't go around and delete those releases from the Maven Central,
> from SF.net, etc.
>
> - The project doesn't have an org.apache.* Maven groupId, nor a such
> Java package (in 2.x.x, because of backward compatibility, and we
> are talking about 2.x.x only here). So as far as I see it's quite
> unlikely that the user will see "Apache" without "incubating"
> because we have removed it from the *Maven* version number, at least
> if we change <name>Apache FreeMarker</name> in the POM to
> <name>Apache FreeMarker (incubating)</name>.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>
> Saturday, December 31, 2016, 1:50:02 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> > For reference, please read this thread from 2008:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> >
> > It has all the arguments for and against the -incubating versioning
> > label, and why the disclaimer exists. Warning: it is long (I haven't
> > even reached the conclusion after about an hour of reading).
> >
> > It goes of a bit about releasing through Maven, and some quibles with
> > central repository management and releases and other politics, but it
> > should be enlightening to see all positions. Read it with an open mind
> > and don't look only for the bits that support your position, but try
> > to understand the other side as well.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
> > <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> >> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
> >>> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
> >>>
> >>
> >> In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully
> pass a
> >> graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
> >> mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
> >> decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some
> committers.
> >> However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the
> concern
> >> that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the
> stability
> >> of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not
> probably
> >> affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
The original question in this thread is much less generic than in the
linked one though, so it's certainly easier to answer. Just as a
reminder, the specialities are these:
- This project already have suffixless releases from before
incubation, which are widely used. If the incubation fails, those
versions won't be any better that the incubating ones. After all, ASF
won't go around and delete those releases from the Maven Central,
from SF.net, etc.
- The project doesn't have an org.apache.* Maven groupId, nor a such
Java package (in 2.x.x, because of backward compatibility, and we
are talking about 2.x.x only here). So as far as I see it's quite
unlikely that the user will see "Apache" without "incubating"
because we have removed it from the *Maven* version number, at least
if we change <name>Apache FreeMarker</name> in the POM to
<name>Apache FreeMarker (incubating)</name>.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Saturday, December 31, 2016, 1:50:02 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> For reference, please read this thread from 2008:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> It has all the arguments for and against the -incubating versioning
> label, and why the disclaimer exists. Warning: it is long (I haven't
> even reached the conclusion after about an hour of reading).
>
> It goes of a bit about releasing through Maven, and some quibles with
> central repository management and releases and other politics, but it
> should be enlightening to see all positions. Read it with an open mind
> and don't look only for the bits that support your position, but try
> to understand the other side as well.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
> <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
>> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
>>> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully pass a
>> graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
>> mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
>> decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some committers.
>> However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the concern
>> that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the stability
>> of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not probably
>> affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
>>
>> Jacopo
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
For reference, please read this thread from 2008:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b6c065a908c5f9ec39fa78c31b39c83a6fea29eb34fada0ee070413@1222432864@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
It has all the arguments for and against the -incubating versioning
label, and why the disclaimer exists. Warning: it is long (I haven't
even reached the conclusion after about an hour of reading).
It goes of a bit about releasing through Maven, and some quibles with
central repository management and releases and other politics, but it
should be enlightening to see all positions. Read it with an open mind
and don't look only for the bits that support your position, but try
to understand the other side as well.
Martijn
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jacopo Cappellato
<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
>> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
>>
>
> In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully pass a
> graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
> mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
> decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some committers.
> However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the concern
> that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the stability
> of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not probably
> affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
>
> Jacopo
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
> learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
>
In my opinion the Freemarker project would be ready to successfully pass a
graduation vote and a discussion thread is going on in the project's
mailing list; based on how the conversation is going the community may
decide to wait a few more weeks in order to try to attract some committers.
However I think that the topic discussed in this thread (about the concern
that the "-incubating" suffix may mislead the consumers about the stability
of a software product) is a valid one; even if its output will not probably
affect Freemarker (that could be a TLP by then).
Jacopo
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
You are trying to fix the wrong thing. The whole idea of the
-incubating moniker is to communicate to end users that the project is
inside the incubator, and can fail incubation. The only and best way
to get rid of the -incubating scheme is to *graduate*.
Don't remain in the incubator hiding in your community, but fix those
licensing issues, grow your community, reach out to the wider
incubator community outside your 3 monthly report and hook up with
other Apache projects for collaboration.
Freemarker has been in incubation for 17 months. What do you need to
learn and do before you will start your graduation vote?
Martijn
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> coordinates:
>
> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
>
> The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
>
> As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> "FreeMarker").
>
> *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> also stuck at that version for some reason.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@apache.org>.
> I personally have received negative feedback from both colleagues and
management on the use of projects with the name "incubating" in them,
putting them into the same category as alpha or beta software.
So true.
> It'd be far preferable, IMO, for IPMC to drop the suffix requirement
entirely
I agree.
> The Maven groupId is an important attribute in dependency management,
and changing it causes technical problems for the users, as Maven
doesn't know the concept of groupId renames/aliases.
What Daniel Dekany originally asked of just removing -incubating from the
version number on future releases doesn't seem to cause any problem.
--emi
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> The Maven groupId is an important attribute in dependency management,
> and changing it causes technical problems for the users, as Maven
> doesn't know the concept of groupId renames/aliases. What happens
> again and again in real world projects (where a dependency graph of
> over 100 jar-s is common) is that something depends on
> original.group.name:foo:1.1.0, and then some other thing on
> changed.group.name:foo:1.2.0, and because Maven doesn't see this as
> two conflicting dependencies, both jar will be part of your
> deployment. Then if the classes from which version will take
> precedence during class loading can be quite unpredictable (though
> experience shows that the intended version will take precedence during
> development and testing, and the legacy version on the production
> server ;-) ). After you realize what's going on, you can go an
> manually exclude the 1.1.0 from some 3rd party dependency, but for
> some it takes time to realize, or can even remain unnoticed for long
> time, etc.
>
> So changing the groupId can cause some trouble even for projects that
> start their life in the incubator and has not widely used when they
> graduate and so had to change groupId. But it's much more problematic
> for projects that already have established user base before starting
> incubation (as in this case). The less often you have to change
> groupId, the better.
>
>
> Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 3:18:52 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
> > I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
> > match the IPMC released version identifier.
> >
> > If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in
> the
> > groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
> > interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would
> be
> > incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with
> dropping
> > the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
> >
> > I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present,
> and
> > redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
> > it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
> > the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
> > as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> >> coordinates:
> >>
> >> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> >> <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
> >>
> >> The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> >> it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> >> that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> >> years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
> >>
> >> As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> >> "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> >> we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> >> on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> >> (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> >> less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> >> would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> >> downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> >> anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> >> "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> >> "FreeMarker").
> >>
> >> *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> >> will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> >> version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> >> any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> >> believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> >> queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> >> that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> >> versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> >> non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> >> "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> >> also stuck at that version for some reason.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel Dekany
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
The Maven groupId is an important attribute in dependency management,
and changing it causes technical problems for the users, as Maven
doesn't know the concept of groupId renames/aliases. What happens
again and again in real world projects (where a dependency graph of
over 100 jar-s is common) is that something depends on
original.group.name:foo:1.1.0, and then some other thing on
changed.group.name:foo:1.2.0, and because Maven doesn't see this as
two conflicting dependencies, both jar will be part of your
deployment. Then if the classes from which version will take
precedence during class loading can be quite unpredictable (though
experience shows that the intended version will take precedence during
development and testing, and the legacy version on the production
server ;-) ). After you realize what's going on, you can go an
manually exclude the 1.1.0 from some 3rd party dependency, but for
some it takes time to realize, or can even remain unnoticed for long
time, etc.
So changing the groupId can cause some trouble even for projects that
start their life in the incubator and has not widely used when they
graduate and so had to change groupId. But it's much more problematic
for projects that already have established user base before starting
incubation (as in this case). The less often you have to change
groupId, the better.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 3:18:52 AM, Christopher wrote:
> I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
> match the IPMC released version identifier.
>
> If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in the
> groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
> interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would be
> incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with dropping
> the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
>
> I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present, and
> redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
> it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
> the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
> as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
>> coordinates:
>>
>> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
>> <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
>> <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
>>
>> The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
>> it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
>> that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
>> years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
>>
>> As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
>> "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
>> we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
>> on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
>> (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
>> less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
>> would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
>> downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
>> anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
>> "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
>> "FreeMarker").
>>
>> *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
>> will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
>> version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
>> any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
>> believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
>> queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
>> that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
>> versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
>> non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
>> "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
>> also stuck at that version for some reason.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 2:09:11 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:35 AM Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 4:12:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> The one complication here is that the release artifact (source tarball) is
>> most easily created with a maven project by using the maven-assembly-plugin
>> with the source tarball assembly defined in the ASF-wide parent POM.
>
> I'm not sure how hard it would be to set up the POM so that it
> produces an assembly with the "-incubating" suffix even if the project
> version doesn't contain it. Anyway, some extra release steps during
> incubation can be better than troubling the users (developers who
> depend on your project) with an additional groupId change or with a
> non-standard version suffix. There are much more users than people who
> do releases after all.
>
> Do you need to add the -incubating suffix via maven? When staging
> the release in dev, you can name the file as you like. Even if not,
> maven assembly adds a suffix for you. you can name your execution -src-incubating to include it.
Yes, I guess it's not a problem even for Maven-based projects, that
was my point. The FreeMarker build is not Maven-based, and it can
already do this.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 8:09 AM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:35 AM Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
> > Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 4:12:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > The one complication here is that the release artifact (source tarball)
> > is
> > > most easily created with a maven project by using the
> > maven-assembly-plugin
> > > with the source tarball assembly defined in the ASF-wide parent POM.
> >
> > I'm not sure how hard it would be to set up the POM so that it
> > produces an assembly with the "-incubating" suffix even if the project
> > version doesn't contain it. Anyway, some extra release steps during
> > incubation can be better than troubling the users (developers who
> > depend on your project) with an additional groupId change or with a
> > non-standard version suffix. There are much more users than people who
> > do releases after all.
> >
>
> Do you need to add the -incubating suffix via maven? When staging the
> release in dev, you can name the file as you like. Even if not, maven
> assembly adds a suffix for you. you can name your execution
> -src-incubating to include it.
>
>
It's not possible to manually rename the artifact before staging it in
Nexus, which is the most sensible thing for Maven projects to use for
staging. It is possible to rename it in SVN dist/dev, but as I said
earlier, that can also cause confusion, as in: is
"project-version-incubating.tar.gz" on the website the same as the
"project-version" I see in Maven Central and which is in the SCM tag?
Adding the suffix in some places, but not others, especially by manual
steps after altering the convenient automated tooling output, is probably
not a good idea. It's likely to cause confusion, as well as introduce
inconsistencies through human error.
>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel Dekany
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Christopher
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:35 AM Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 4:12:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > The one complication here is that the release artifact (source tarball)
> is
> > most easily created with a maven project by using the
> maven-assembly-plugin
> > with the source tarball assembly defined in the ASF-wide parent POM.
>
> I'm not sure how hard it would be to set up the POM so that it
> produces an assembly with the "-incubating" suffix even if the project
> version doesn't contain it. Anyway, some extra release steps during
> incubation can be better than troubling the users (developers who
> depend on your project) with an additional groupId change or with a
> non-standard version suffix. There are much more users than people who
> do releases after all.
>
Do you need to add the -incubating suffix via maven? When staging the
release in dev, you can name the file as you like. Even if not, maven
assembly adds a suffix for you. you can name your execution
-src-incubating to include it.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute for FreeMarker
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 4:12:06 AM, Christopher wrote:
[snip]
> The one complication here is that the release artifact (source tarball) is
> most easily created with a maven project by using the maven-assembly-plugin
> with the source tarball assembly defined in the ASF-wide parent POM.
I'm not sure how hard it would be to set up the POM so that it
produces an assembly with the "-incubating" suffix even if the project
version doesn't contain it. Anyway, some extra release steps during
incubation can be better than troubling the users (developers who
depend on your project) with an additional groupId change or with a
non-standard version suffix. There are much more users than people who
do releases after all.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:43 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I personally have received negative feedback from both colleagues and
> management on the use of projects with the name "incubating" in them,
> putting them into the same category as alpha or beta software.
>
> When Daniel brought this up on the freemarker list, I did give him my
> support in the matter. I've sent a few emails recently about updating
> incubator policies and guides, to fix problems that have been identified.
> As far as I'm concerned, what he's asking doesn't require any change - the
> use of -incubating in the version # has been a self imposed rule, not a
> policy the incubator has requested [1] (note the should).
>
> As far as including it in the group ID, I would expect it to then look like
> "org.apache.incubator.podling" but then we are mandating maven coordinates,
>
Yes, that's what I was thinking.
> which thus far the ASF has not done [2]. I actually prefer the
> non-mandated approach, since as you mention, all of the supporting
> materials require the disclaimer.
>
>
I agree that mandating coords isn't the right way to go, but it might be
okay to suggest coords. In any case, I'm not as much of a fan of this as I
was when I first thought of it earlier... it creates an unnecessary
transition pre-/post-graduation. And, it doesn't help with anything if the
IPMC continues to require the suffix in the release tarball and the release
tarball is built using maven-assembly-plugin (a sensible thing to do).
> The actual requirement, as I've understood it, is that the release artifact
> (the source tarball) includes -incubating. Not generated maven artifacts
> (which are the output of that source tarball).
>
>
The one complication here is that the release artifact (source tarball) is
most easily created with a maven project by using the maven-assembly-plugin
with the source tarball assembly defined in the ASF-wide parent POM.
There's also value in treating the release artifact (source tarball) as any
other maven-produced artifact (both value in using Nexus to stage releases,
and value in deploying source release tarball to Maven central for archival
and possibly for use as a dependency).
It'd be far preferable, IMO, for IPMC to drop the suffix requirement
entirely, than for any maven-based project to produce the source-tarball
independently from the production of maven artifacts. Dropping the
requirement entirely, would make it easier to use automated Maven tooling
for releases. (This automation helps ensure consistent quality, and avoid
human-error and oversight in what could otherwise be very complicated
releasing.)
> John
>
> [1]:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
> [2]: http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:19 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
> > match the IPMC released version identifier.
> >
> > If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in
> the
> > groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
> > interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would
> be
> > incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with
> dropping
> > the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
> >
> > I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present,
> and
> > redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
> > it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
> > the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
> > as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> > > coordinates:
> > >
> > > <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> > > <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> > > <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
> > >
> > > The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> > > it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> > > that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> > > years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
> > >
> > > As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> > > "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> > > we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> > > on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> > > (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> > > less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> > > would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> > > downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> > > anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> > > "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> > > "FreeMarker").
> > >
> > > *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> > > will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> > > version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> > > any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> > > believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> > > queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> > > that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> > > versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> > > non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> > > "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> > > also stuck at that version for some reason.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Daniel Dekany
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Christopher
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I personally have received negative feedback from both colleagues and
management on the use of projects with the name "incubating" in them,
putting them into the same category as alpha or beta software.
When Daniel brought this up on the freemarker list, I did give him my
support in the matter. I've sent a few emails recently about updating
incubator policies and guides, to fix problems that have been identified.
As far as I'm concerned, what he's asking doesn't require any change - the
use of -incubating in the version # has been a self imposed rule, not a
policy the incubator has requested [1] (note the should).
As far as including it in the group ID, I would expect it to then look like
"org.apache.incubator.podling" but then we are mandating maven coordinates,
which thus far the ASF has not done [2]. I actually prefer the
non-mandated approach, since as you mention, all of the supporting
materials require the disclaimer.
The actual requirement, as I've understood it, is that the release artifact
(the source tarball) includes -incubating. Not generated maven artifacts
(which are the output of that source tarball).
John
[1]:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
[2]: http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:19 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
> match the IPMC released version identifier.
>
> If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in the
> groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
> interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would be
> incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with dropping
> the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
>
> I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present, and
> redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
> it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
> the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
> as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> > coordinates:
> >
> > <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> > <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> > <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
> >
> > The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> > it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> > that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> > years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
> >
> > As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> > "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> > we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> > on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> > (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> > less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> > would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> > downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> > anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> > "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> > "FreeMarker").
> >
> > *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> > will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> > version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> > any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> > believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> > queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> > that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> > versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> > non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> > "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> > also stuck at that version for some reason.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel Dekany
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Omitting "-incubating" suffix in Maven artifact version attribute
for FreeMarker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
I think it could also be confusing for users of the Maven version didn't
match the IPMC released version identifier.
If anything, it probably makes more sense to have the '-incubating' in the
groupId , since it's the endorsement of the foundation which is in the
interim state. The groupId typically contains the TLP name, which would be
incubator. So, org.apache.incubator? I would like that along with dropping
the incubating suffix on all artifact versions (Maven or not).
I think it's generally confusing for users to have the suffix present, and
redundant when the artifact readme, pom metadata, or other files explain
it's status more clearly. It also creates excessively long file names and
the naming convention conflicts with other post-version identifiers, such
as Maven classifiers and RPM release/arch info.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 20:18 Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The last release of Apache FreeMarker (incubating) has these Maven
> coordinates:
>
> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
> <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
> <version>2.3.25-incubating</version>
>
> The "-incubating" in the Maven version is confusing for the users, as
> it looks as the version number of an unstable release, and it seems
> that this causes many to stick to the last non-Apache release from 1.5
> years ago. (See the "*" footnote if you want some more details.)
>
> As far as I know there's no explicit requirement for having
> "incubating" in the Maven artifact version number. So, I wonder, can
> we just omit "-incubating" from the Maven artifact versions from now
> on? In FreeMarker's case the Maven groupId doesn't contain org.apache
> (I know, it should, but that's a different topic), so I guess there's
> less danger of branding confusion here. Of course, the version number
> would remain x.x.x-incubating in the file names of the releases
> downloadable from apache.org and so on. Also, in case it bothers
> anyone, the "name" element in the Maven POM could be changed from
> "Apache FreeMarker" to "Apache FreeMarker (incubating)" (or just to
> "FreeMarker").
>
> *: For those not working in the Java ecosystem, know that many users
> will not go to the project home page nowadays to find the latest
> version, just look at the versions at the Maven Central. Without
> any place for explanation, "2.3.25-incubating" and such are often
> believed to be development versions. (I have seen a few user
> queries that indicated that too.) It certainly doesn't help either
> that http://mvnrepository.com automatically marks these incubating
> versions with red (~ alpha). Also, on the same place the last
> non-Apache release has almost 5x more usages than the last two
> "-incubating" releases together, which is suspicious. Spring has
> also stuck at that version for some reason.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>