You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sling.apache.org by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> on 2020/09/22 15:07:54 UTC
Jira version names vs Maven module names
Hi,
I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
I just did the change.
Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
- it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
- we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
simplify our life by having matching names.
Thanks,
Robert
[1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 12:08 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> THanks Robert,
>
> now if I get it right you're proposing to change
>
> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>
> to
>
> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin 1.4.0'
>
> in Jira, correct?
>
> And revert the renaming to "OSGi Feature Maven Plugin" ?
I've now removed all traces of 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin' from the
versions and moved to 'slingfeature-maven-plugin XXX' format.
Thanks,
Robert
>
> I'm fine with that
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
> Am 24.09.2020 um 11:58 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> > First of all, just to restate the intent: I don't suggest renaming
> > the
> > Jira versions because of the tool limitations. I think it makes
> > sense
> > to use something that is aligned with the module name and that
> > problem
> > was exposed by the tooling.
> >
> > We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version'
> > for
> > quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different.
> > Just a
> > note, not something bad by itself.
> >
> > On the idea that artifact names are opaque to our users, I think
> > we're
> > focusing too much on the slingfeature-maven-plugin vs 'OSGi Feature
> > Maven Plugin' discussion. In this particular instance I think the
> > artifact name is wrong. It should be 'SlingFeature Maven Plugin',
> > which
> > would make it obvious for users what version to report bugs
> > against. In
> > my mind the rule that Georg proposed is basically how we generate
> > artifact names, e.g.
> >
> > - org.apache.sling.jcr.base -> 'JCR Base'
> > - org.apache.sling.api -> 'API'
> >
> > etc
> >
> > I personally am not proposing a big change where we rename
> > historically
> > released versions, I am not sure if it is helpful and if it
> > justifies
> > the effort.
> >
> > I would however suggest that we at least keep the 'name' 'version'
> > convention, e.g. 'slingfeature-maven-plugin 1.4.0' instead of
> > 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0' format, as it nicely separates
> > the
> > artifact from the version itself.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 10:22 +0200, Georg Henzler wrote:
> > > Generally I'm also in favor of the artifactId because it
> > > makes a proper id (as already stated). However it is a lot
> > > of noise because all versions in JIRA project "SLING" will
> > > start with "org.apache.sling.". So why not just use the
> > > rule
> > >
> > > substringAfter(artifactId, "org.apache.sling.") + "-" + version
> > >
> > > That would give us versions like api-2.23.0, auth.core-1.5.1 etc.
> > > The big advantage of this is that you see the actual version
> > > number in JIRA UI (if the version string is very long, you only
> > > see the prefix and the actual version is cut off, this really
> > > has to be avoided and hence IMHO we cannot just use the
> > > artifactID)
> > >
> > > We don't need to change the past, we can just use the name
> > > convention for the future for all releases... (and Robert can
> > > fix the tooling to exactly one well-defined release name)
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > -Georg
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2020-09-23 09:52, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > > > Our base rule is that the BSN is the same as the artifact ID.
> > > > There might be some exceptions, sure, but that's probably
> > > > neglectable.
> > > >
> > > > At least I'm not arguing for doing a rename at this point in
> > > > time -
> > > > but rather keep things just as they are. If someone feels
> > > > strongely
> > > > to
> > > > rename in Jira, that's fine.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Carsten
> > > >
> > > > Am 23.09.2020 um 08:23 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > > > > For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN
> > > > > is.
> > > > > This is not necessarily the same.
> > > > > So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles
> > > > > and
> > > > > artifact ID for Maven plugins.
> > > > > Konrad
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert
> > > > > > <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi
> > > > > > Feature
> > > > > > Maven
> > > > > > Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
> > > > > > <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
> > > > > > Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another problem is that the name is not required to be
> > > > > > unique.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > _should_
> > > > > > be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 2c,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <
> > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just to state it again, artifact name is really not
> > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > for our
> > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact
> > > > > > > id
> > > > > > > is in
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > face when they use these things, being it the plugin
> > > > > > > name,
> > > > > > > the maven
> > > > > > > coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on
> > > > > > > ids.
> > > > > > > Ids are stable - names might change
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names,
> > > > > > > makes it
> > > > > > > worse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > - and
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > done with this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Carsten
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > > > > > > > I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > in JIRA.
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named
> > > > > > > after the
> > > > > > > artifact
> > > > > > > name (
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
> > > > > > > Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
> > > > > > > https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
> > > > > > > > We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is
> > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > effort to
> > > > > > > migrate all the release version names (would require some
> > > > > > > scripting). I
> > > > > > > would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just
> > > > > > > turn
> > > > > > > the few
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > use artifact id right now into artifact name
> > > > > > > > Konrad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <
> > > > > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > jira,
> > > > > > > > > like in
> > > > > > > this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > decide,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we
> > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > rename with
> > > > > > > version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous
> > > > > > > versions.
> > > > > > > > > Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to
> > > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > a bug
> > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > visable in
> > > > > > > the error from maven), I think someone finds
> > > > > > > slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi
> > > > > > > Feature Maven
> > > > > > > Plugin
> > > > > > > 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
> > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > Carsten
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > I am in a middle of a release (and using the
> > > > > > > > > > committer
> > > > > > > > > > cli [1])
> > > > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool)
> > > > > > > > > > version:
> > > > > > > > > > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases
> > > > > > > > > > found in
> > > > > > > > > > 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
> > > > > > > > > > To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to
> > > > > > > > > > 'OSGi Feature
> > > > > > > > > > Maven
> > > > > > > > > > Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is
> > > > > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > > reversible so
> > > > > > > > > > I just did the change.
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > value IMO
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > having module names and Jira version names aligned,
> > > > > > > > > > namely:
> > > > > > > > > > - it is clear for users and tools what release maps
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > module
> > > > > > > > > > - we don't have to invent a second name for the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > thing :-)
> > > > > > > > > > I'm open to saying that version names can be
> > > > > > > > > > arbitrary,
> > > > > > > > > > but then
> > > > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > > > simplify our life by having matching names.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > > > > > Adobe Research Switzerland
> > > > > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > > > Adobe Research Switzerland
> > > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > > > > >
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
THanks Robert,
now if I get it right you're proposing to change
'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
to
'slingfeature-maven-plugin 1.4.0'
in Jira, correct?
And revert the renaming to "OSGi Feature Maven Plugin" ?
I'm fine with that
Regards
Carsten
Am 24.09.2020 um 11:58 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> First of all, just to restate the intent: I don't suggest renaming the
> Jira versions because of the tool limitations. I think it makes sense
> to use something that is aligned with the module name and that problem
> was exposed by the tooling.
>
> We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version' for
> quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different. Just a
> note, not something bad by itself.
>
> On the idea that artifact names are opaque to our users, I think we're
> focusing too much on the slingfeature-maven-plugin vs 'OSGi Feature
> Maven Plugin' discussion. In this particular instance I think the
> artifact name is wrong. It should be 'SlingFeature Maven Plugin', which
> would make it obvious for users what version to report bugs against. In
> my mind the rule that Georg proposed is basically how we generate
> artifact names, e.g.
>
> - org.apache.sling.jcr.base -> 'JCR Base'
> - org.apache.sling.api -> 'API'
>
> etc
>
> I personally am not proposing a big change where we rename historically
> released versions, I am not sure if it is helpful and if it justifies
> the effort.
>
> I would however suggest that we at least keep the 'name' 'version'
> convention, e.g. 'slingfeature-maven-plugin 1.4.0' instead of
> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0' format, as it nicely separates the
> artifact from the version itself.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 10:22 +0200, Georg Henzler wrote:
>> Generally I'm also in favor of the artifactId because it
>> makes a proper id (as already stated). However it is a lot
>> of noise because all versions in JIRA project "SLING" will
>> start with "org.apache.sling.". So why not just use the
>> rule
>>
>> substringAfter(artifactId, "org.apache.sling.") + "-" + version
>>
>> That would give us versions like api-2.23.0, auth.core-1.5.1 etc.
>> The big advantage of this is that you see the actual version
>> number in JIRA UI (if the version string is very long, you only
>> see the prefix and the actual version is cut off, this really
>> has to be avoided and hence IMHO we cannot just use the
>> artifactID)
>>
>> We don't need to change the past, we can just use the name
>> convention for the future for all releases... (and Robert can
>> fix the tooling to exactly one well-defined release name)
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> -Georg
>>
>>
>> On 2020-09-23 09:52, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>> Our base rule is that the BSN is the same as the artifact ID.
>>> There might be some exceptions, sure, but that's probably
>>> neglectable.
>>>
>>> At least I'm not arguing for doing a rename at this point in time -
>>> but rather keep things just as they are. If someone feels strongely
>>> to
>>> rename in Jira, that's fine.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> Am 23.09.2020 um 08:23 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>>>> For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN is.
>>>> This is not necessarily the same.
>>>> So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles and
>>>> artifact ID for Maven plugins.
>>>> Konrad
>>>>
>>>>> On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert
>>>>> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if
>>>>> for
>>>>> example
>>>>> someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they
>>>>> would
>>>>> probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi
>>>>> Feature
>>>>> Maven
>>>>> Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of
>>>>> the
>>>>> original
>>>>> codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
>>>>> <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
>>>>> Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique.
>>>>> It
>>>>> _should_
>>>>> be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2c,
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <
>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful
>>>>>> for our
>>>>>> users
>>>>>> out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> face when they use these things, being it the plugin name,
>>>>>> the maven
>>>>>> coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
>>>>>> Ids are stable - names might change
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to
>>>>>> change
>>>>>> things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name
>>>>>> - and
>>>>>> we're
>>>>>> done with this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Carsten
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>>>>>>> I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name
>>>>>>> in JIRA.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>> the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named
>>>>>> after the
>>>>>> artifact
>>>>>> name (
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
>>>>>> Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
>>>>>> https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
>>>>>>> We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> effort to
>>>>>> migrate all the release version names (would require some
>>>>>> scripting). I
>>>>>> would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn
>>>>>> the few
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> use artifact id right now into artifact name
>>>>>>> Konrad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <
>>>>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in
>>>>>>>> jira,
>>>>>>>> like in
>>>>>> this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we
>>>>>> decide,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> rename with
>>>>>> version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous
>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file
>>>>>>>> a bug
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>> the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> visable in
>>>>>> the error from maven), I think someone finds
>>>>>> slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi
>>>>>> Feature Maven
>>>>>> Plugin
>>>>>> 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Carsten
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer
>>>>>>>>> cli [1])
>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>>>>>>>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases
>>>>>>>>> found in
>>>>>>>>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>>>>>>>>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to
>>>>>>>>> 'OSGi Feature
>>>>>>>>> Maven
>>>>>>>>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is
>>>>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>>>>> reversible so
>>>>>>>>> I just did the change.
>>>>>>>>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some
>>>>>>>>> value IMO
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> having module names and Jira version names aligned,
>>>>>>>>> namely:
>>>>>>>>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same
>>>>>>>>> thing :-)
>>>>>>>>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary,
>>>>>>>>> but then
>>>>>>>>> we can
>>>>>>>>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>>>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>>>
>
--
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 12:15 +0200, Konrad Windszus wrote:
> On 24. Sep 2020, at 11:58, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version'
> > for
> > quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different.
> > Just a
> > note, not something bad by itself.
>
> I would very much appreciate consistency in the naming.
> This is IMHO more important than the fact whether we use artifactId
> or artifactName.
>
> It is important for committers to know how to label things correctly.
> I myself am used to using artifact names.
> I probably wouldn't find artifact ids.
>
> As the reporters very rarely fill that field anyways, I think we use
> what works best for committers.
> And (speaking only for myself) with that in mind I would keep "OSGi
> Feature Maven Plugin" and not rename back to artifact id.
I rolled back the change until we get some consensus on how to use
version names.
I agree that version names are probably not useful very much for our
users. At best, they might fill in the 'Component' field. We are not at
a point where we are drowning in bug reports and need more structure in
the process.
My proposal would be to
a) change the name of the slingfeature-maven-plugin to 'Apache Sling
SlingFeature Maven Plugin' or 'Apache Sling Feature Maven Plugin'
b) Update the new Jira versions accordingly, e.g. 'SlingFeature Maven
Plugin 1.4.6' for the unreleased one.
I think the version name is descriptive enough for reporter that choose
to select it and also brings around consistency in how we handle Jira
versions.
Thoughts?
Robert
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Konrad Windszus <ko...@gmx.de>.
On 24. Sep 2020, at 11:58, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version' for
> quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different. Just a
> note, not something bad by itself.
I would very much appreciate consistency in the naming.
This is IMHO more important than the fact whether we use artifactId or artifactName.
It is important for committers to know how to label things correctly.
I myself am used to using artifact names.
I probably wouldn't find artifact ids.
As the reporters very rarely fill that field anyways, I think we use what works best for committers.
And (speaking only for myself) with that in mind I would keep "OSGi Feature Maven Plugin" and not rename back to artifact id.
Konrad
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
First of all, just to restate the intent: I don't suggest renaming the
Jira versions because of the tool limitations. I think it makes sense
to use something that is aligned with the module name and that problem
was exposed by the tooling.
We created Jira versions in the form of 'Artifact Name' 'Version' for
quite some time, only one of them stands out by being different. Just a
note, not something bad by itself.
On the idea that artifact names are opaque to our users, I think we're
focusing too much on the slingfeature-maven-plugin vs 'OSGi Feature
Maven Plugin' discussion. In this particular instance I think the
artifact name is wrong. It should be 'SlingFeature Maven Plugin', which
would make it obvious for users what version to report bugs against. In
my mind the rule that Georg proposed is basically how we generate
artifact names, e.g.
- org.apache.sling.jcr.base -> 'JCR Base'
- org.apache.sling.api -> 'API'
etc
I personally am not proposing a big change where we rename historically
released versions, I am not sure if it is helpful and if it justifies
the effort.
I would however suggest that we at least keep the 'name' 'version'
convention, e.g. 'slingfeature-maven-plugin 1.4.0' instead of
'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0' format, as it nicely separates the
artifact from the version itself.
Thanks,
Robert
On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 10:22 +0200, Georg Henzler wrote:
> Generally I'm also in favor of the artifactId because it
> makes a proper id (as already stated). However it is a lot
> of noise because all versions in JIRA project "SLING" will
> start with "org.apache.sling.". So why not just use the
> rule
>
> substringAfter(artifactId, "org.apache.sling.") + "-" + version
>
> That would give us versions like api-2.23.0, auth.core-1.5.1 etc.
> The big advantage of this is that you see the actual version
> number in JIRA UI (if the version string is very long, you only
> see the prefix and the actual version is cut off, this really
> has to be avoided and hence IMHO we cannot just use the
> artifactID)
>
> We don't need to change the past, we can just use the name
> convention for the future for all releases... (and Robert can
> fix the tooling to exactly one well-defined release name)
>
> WDYT?
>
> -Georg
>
>
> On 2020-09-23 09:52, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > Our base rule is that the BSN is the same as the artifact ID.
> > There might be some exceptions, sure, but that's probably
> > neglectable.
> >
> > At least I'm not arguing for doing a rename at this point in time -
> > but rather keep things just as they are. If someone feels strongely
> > to
> > rename in Jira, that's fine.
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> >
> > Am 23.09.2020 um 08:23 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > > For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN is.
> > > This is not necessarily the same.
> > > So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles and
> > > artifact ID for Maven plugins.
> > > Konrad
> > >
> > > > On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert
> > > > <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if
> > > > for
> > > > example
> > > > someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they
> > > > would
> > > > probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi
> > > > Feature
> > > > Maven
> > > > Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of
> > > > the
> > > > original
> > > > codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
> > > > <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
> > > > Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
> > > >
> > > > Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique.
> > > > It
> > > > _should_
> > > > be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
> > > >
> > > > My 2c,
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <
> > > > cziegeler@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful
> > > > > for our
> > > > > users
> > > > > out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id
> > > > > is in
> > > > > their
> > > > > face when they use these things, being it the plugin name,
> > > > > the maven
> > > > > coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
> > > > > Ids are stable - names might change
> > > > >
> > > > > Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it
> > > > > worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't
> > > > > understand
> > > > > why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to
> > > > > change
> > > > > things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name
> > > > > - and
> > > > > we're
> > > > > done with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Carsten
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > > > > > I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name
> > > > > > in JIRA.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named
> > > > > after the
> > > > > artifact
> > > > > name (
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
> > > > > Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
> > > > > https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
> > > > > > We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > effort to
> > > > > migrate all the release version names (would require some
> > > > > scripting). I
> > > > > would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn
> > > > > the few
> > > > > which
> > > > > use artifact id right now into artifact name
> > > > > > Konrad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <
> > > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in
> > > > > > > jira,
> > > > > > > like in
> > > > > this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we
> > > > > decide,
> > > > > it
> > > > > needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start
> > > > > to
> > > > > rename with
> > > > > version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous
> > > > > versions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file
> > > > > > > a bug
> > > > > > > against
> > > > > the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what
> > > > > is
> > > > > visable in
> > > > > the error from maven), I think someone finds
> > > > > slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi
> > > > > Feature Maven
> > > > > Plugin
> > > > > 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Carsten
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer
> > > > > > > > cli [1])
> > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
> > > > > > > > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases
> > > > > > > > found in
> > > > > > > > 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
> > > > > > > > To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to
> > > > > > > > 'OSGi Feature
> > > > > > > > Maven
> > > > > > > > Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is
> > > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > reversible so
> > > > > > > > I just did the change.
> > > > > > > > Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some
> > > > > > > > value IMO
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > having module names and Jira version names aligned,
> > > > > > > > namely:
> > > > > > > > - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > module
> > > > > > > > - we don't have to invent a second name for the same
> > > > > > > > thing :-)
> > > > > > > > I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary,
> > > > > > > > but then
> > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > simplify our life by having matching names.
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > > > Adobe Research Switzerland
> > > > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > Adobe Research Switzerland
> > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > > >
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Georg Henzler <gh...@apache.org>.
Generally I'm also in favor of the artifactId because it
makes a proper id (as already stated). However it is a lot
of noise because all versions in JIRA project "SLING" will
start with "org.apache.sling.". So why not just use the
rule
substringAfter(artifactId, "org.apache.sling.") + "-" + version
That would give us versions like api-2.23.0, auth.core-1.5.1 etc.
The big advantage of this is that you see the actual version
number in JIRA UI (if the version string is very long, you only
see the prefix and the actual version is cut off, this really
has to be avoided and hence IMHO we cannot just use the
artifactID)
We don't need to change the past, we can just use the name
convention for the future for all releases... (and Robert can
fix the tooling to exactly one well-defined release name)
WDYT?
-Georg
On 2020-09-23 09:52, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Our base rule is that the BSN is the same as the artifact ID.
> There might be some exceptions, sure, but that's probably neglectable.
>
> At least I'm not arguing for doing a rename at this point in time -
> but rather keep things just as they are. If someone feels strongely to
> rename in Jira, that's fine.
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
> Am 23.09.2020 um 08:23 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>> For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN is.
>> This is not necessarily the same.
>> So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles and
>> artifact ID for Maven plugins.
>> Konrad
>>
>>> On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert
>>> <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if for
>>> example
>>> someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they would
>>> probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi Feature
>>> Maven
>>> Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of the
>>> original
>>> codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
>>> <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
>>> Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
>>>
>>> Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique. It
>>> _should_
>>> be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
>>>
>>> My 2c,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful for our
>>>> users
>>>> out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id is in
>>>> their
>>>> face when they use these things, being it the plugin name, the maven
>>>> coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
>>>> Ids are stable - names might change
>>>>
>>>> Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it worse.
>>>>
>>>> We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't
>>>> understand
>>>> why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to change
>>>> things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name - and
>>>> we're
>>>> done with this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Carsten
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>>>>> I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA.
>>>>> But
>>>> the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the
>>>> artifact
>>>> name (
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
>>>> Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
>>>> https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
>>>>> We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the
>>>>> effort to
>>>> migrate all the release version names (would require some
>>>> scripting). I
>>>> would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few
>>>> which
>>>> use artifact id right now into artifact name
>>>>>
>>>>> Konrad
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira,
>>>>>> like in
>>>> this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide,
>>>> it
>>>> needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to
>>>> rename with
>>>> version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug
>>>>>> against
>>>> the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is
>>>> visable in
>>>> the error from maven), I think someone finds
>>>> slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven
>>>> Plugin
>>>> 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Carsten
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1])
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>>>>>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
>>>>>>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>>>>>>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature
>>>>>>> Maven
>>>>>>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly
>>>>>>> reversible so
>>>>>>> I just did the change.
>>>>>>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>>>>>>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which
>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>>>>>>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then
>>>>>>> we can
>>>>>>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>
>>
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Our base rule is that the BSN is the same as the artifact ID.
There might be some exceptions, sure, but that's probably neglectable.
At least I'm not arguing for doing a rename at this point in time - but
rather keep things just as they are. If someone feels strongely to
rename in Jira, that's fine.
Regards
Carsten
Am 23.09.2020 um 08:23 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN is.
> This is not necessarily the same.
> So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles and artifact ID for Maven plugins.
> Konrad
>
>> On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if for example
>> someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they would
>> probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi Feature Maven
>> Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of the original
>> codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
>> <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
>> Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
>>
>> Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique. It _should_
>> be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
>>
>> My 2c,
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful for our users
>>> out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id is in their
>>> face when they use these things, being it the plugin name, the maven
>>> coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
>>> Ids are stable - names might change
>>>
>>> Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it worse.
>>>
>>> We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't understand
>>> why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to change
>>> things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name - and we're
>>> done with this?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>>>> I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA. But
>>> the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the artifact
>>> name (
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
>>> Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
>>> https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
>>>> We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the effort to
>>> migrate all the release version names (would require some scripting). I
>>> would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few which
>>> use artifact id right now into artifact name
>>>>
>>>> Konrad
>>>>
>>>>> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in
>>> this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it
>>> needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename with
>>> version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against
>>> the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable in
>>> the error from maven), I think someone finds
>>> slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin
>>> 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Carsten
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
>>>>>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>>>>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
>>>>>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>>>>>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
>>>>>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
>>>>>> I just did the change.
>>>>>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
>>>>>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>>>>>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
>>>>>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>>>>>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
>>>>>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>
>
--
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Konrad Windszus <ko...@gmx.de>.
For bundles the artifact id is not that visible but the BSN is.
This is not necessarily the same.
So if we do a rename in JIRA we should take BSN for bundles and artifact ID for Maven plugins.
Konrad
> On 23. Sep 2020, at 08:08, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if for example
> someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they would
> probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi Feature Maven
> Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of the original
> codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
> <name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
> Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
>
> Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique. It _should_
> be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
>
> My 2c,
>
> David
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful for our users
>> out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id is in their
>> face when they use these things, being it the plugin name, the maven
>> coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
>> Ids are stable - names might change
>>
>> Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it worse.
>>
>> We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't understand
>> why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to change
>> things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name - and we're
>> done with this?
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>>
>> Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
>>> I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA. But
>> the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the artifact
>> name (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
>> Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
>> https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
>>> We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the effort to
>> migrate all the release version names (would require some scripting). I
>> would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few which
>> use artifact id right now into artifact name
>>>
>>> Konrad
>>>
>>>> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in
>> this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it
>> needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename with
>> version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against
>> the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable in
>> the error from maven), I think someone finds
>> slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin
>> 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Carsten
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
>>>>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>>>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
>>>>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>>>>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
>>>>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
>>>>> I just did the change.
>>>>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
>>>>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>>>>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
>>>>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>>>>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
>>>>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 to using Artifact IDs in JIRA. As mentioned by others, if for example
someone finds a bug running the slingfeature-maven-plugin they would
probably have a hard time finding the component named 'OSGi Feature Maven
Plugin'. To be sure they would have to go to the pom.xml of the original
codebase and look for the name tag, which is:
<name>Apache Sling OSGi Feature Maven Plugin</name>
Then they'd have to take off the 'Apache Sling' prefix.
Another problem is that the name is not required to be unique. It _should_
be, but with the ID you're sure that it's unique.
My 2c,
David
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 06:09, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful for our users
> out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id is in their
> face when they use these things, being it the plugin name, the maven
> coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
> Ids are stable - names might change
>
> Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it worse.
>
> We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't understand
> why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to change
> things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name - and we're
> done with this?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
> Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> > I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA. But
> the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the artifact
> name (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released).
> Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (
> https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
> > We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the effort to
> migrate all the release version names (would require some scripting). I
> would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few which
> use artifact id right now into artifact name
> >
> > Konrad
> >
> >> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in
> this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it
> needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename with
> version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against
> the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable in
> the error from maven), I think someone finds
> slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin
> 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Carsten
> >>
> >> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
> >>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
> >>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
> >>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
> >>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
> >>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
> >>> I just did the change.
> >>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
> >>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
> >>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
> >>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
> >>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
> >>> simplify our life by having matching names.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Robert
> >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Carsten Ziegeler
> >> Adobe Research Switzerland
> >> cziegeler@apache.org
> >
>
> --
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Just to state it again, artifact name is really not useful for our users
out there trying to file a bug against a module. Artifact id is in their
face when they use these things, being it the plugin name, the maven
coordinates or the symbolic name. Everything is based on ids.
Ids are stable - names might change
Renaming the existing artifact ids in Jira to names, makes it worse.
We didn't have any problem with this for years, and I don't understand
why a new tool developed by ourselves should force us now to change
things. Why can't the tool simply look for both, id and name - and we're
done with this?
Regards
Carsten
Am 22.09.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Konrad Windszus:
> I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA. But the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the artifact name (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released). Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
> We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the effort to migrate all the release version names (would require some scripting). I would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few which use artifact id right now into artifact name
>
> Konrad
>
>> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename with version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
>>
>>
>> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable in the error from maven), I think someone finds slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>>
>> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
>>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
>>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
>>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
>>> I just did the change.
>>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
>>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
>>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
>>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert
>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Konrad Windszus <ko...@gmx.de>.
I would also personally prefer artifact id instead of name in JIRA. But the majority of version names in JIRA is right now named after the artifact name (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SLING?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=released). Also our releases section currently uses artifact names (https://sling.apache.org/releases.html).
We should do it consistently and I am not sure it is worth the effort to migrate all the release version names (would require some scripting). I would tend to say, for consistency and simplicity: Just turn the few which use artifact id right now into artifact name
Konrad
> On 22. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename with version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
>
>
> Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable in the error from maven), I think someone finds slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven Plugin 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
> Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
>> Hi,
>> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
>> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
>> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
>> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
>> I just did the change.
>> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
>> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
>> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
>> simplify our life by having matching names.
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>
> --
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Jira version names vs Maven module names
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
I personally think its ok if we use the artifact name in jira, like in
this case - especially as the name might change. Whatever we decide, it
needs to be consistent across a module- meaning if we start to rename
with version 1.4.0 then we also need to rename all previous versions.
Now from a customer perspective, if someone wants to file a bug against
the slingfeature-maven-plugin (which is what is used and what is visable
in the error from maven), I think someone finds
slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0 much easier than 'OSGi Feature Maven
Plugin 1.4.0' which is nowhere visible in maven output.
Regards
Carsten
Am 22.09.2020 um 17:07 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
> Hi,
>
> I am in a middle of a release (and using the committer cli [1]) and I
> got stuck due to an unexpected (for the tool) version:
>
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No releases found in
> 'slingfeature-maven-plugin-1.4.0'
>
> To go for the quick fix, I renamed that version to 'OSGi Feature Maven
> Plugin 1.4.0', matching the module name. This is quickly reversible so
> I just did the change.
>
> Of course, the tool can be changed, but there is some value IMO in
> having module names and Jira version names aligned, namely:
>
> - it is clear for users and tools what release maps to which module
> - we don't have to invent a second name for the same thing :-)
>
> I'm open to saying that version names can be arbitrary, but then we can
> simplify our life by having matching names.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-committer-cli/
>
--
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org