On 9 May 2016 at 11:59, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you look at the contents of > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/io/tags, you will see > that the _existing convention_, dating back to 2.2, is to use the > maven-release-plugin to create a tag like commons-io-xxx, and then to > later add a tag for xxx.
Sorry, but that's not what I see. Originally IO used IO_m_n[_RCn] The convention was changed with 1.3.2 to use the default Maven release:prepare convention, which is artifact-id-version. This was followed until 2.2, when the names were changed again. The convention was reverted in 2.5. I don't see any examples of creating tags of the form M.N from commons-io-M.N until 2.5 The 2.x tags (apart from 2.5) were all created from 2.x-RCn tags > If someone doesn't like that _existing convention_, someone can start > a vote to change it. And stop accusing me of inappropriate innovation. > > I'm done here. > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 07:43, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> sebb <seb...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um 14:47 Uhr: >>> >>>> On 8 May 2016 at 13:43, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > On 8 May 2016 at 13:16, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >> Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 8. Mai 2016 um >>>> >> 14:06 Uhr: >>>> >> >>>> >>> I just made 2.5 look like 2.4. How is that a change that requires >>>> >>> discussion? Shouldn't it have been noticed and discussed when it was >>>> >>> done for 2.4? >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> I see sebb's point. It is good to have a name tags uniformly. Some >>>> >> components have a wild mix of different casing in the tag names. My >>>> >> personal opinion is, that the tag names should just the release version >>>> >> number, but that is a different discussion. >>>> >> >>>> >> If this change has been made to make tag names uniform in commons-io, I >>>> >> don't see a problem with that. >>>> > >>>> > I agree that having mixed names for tags is confusing, but so is >>>> > having multiple tags for the same release. >>>> > >>>> > And in order to fix IO properly it would require many more duplicate >>>> > tags; the current list is: >>>> > >>>> > 2.2/ >>>> > 2.3/ >>>> > 2.4/ >>>> > 2.5/ >>>> > IO_1_0/ >>>> > IO_1_1/ >>>> > IO_1_2/ >>>> > IO_1_3/ >>>> > IO_1_3_1/ >>>> > commons-io-1.3.2/ >>>> > commons-io-1.4/ >>>> > commons-io-2.0/ >>>> > commons-io-2.0.1/ >>>> > commons-io-2.1/ >>>> > commons-io-2.5/ >>>> > >>>> > [For simplicity I have omitted the RCs] >>>> > >>>> > The addition of the 2.5 tag did little to fix the problem. >>>> > >>>> > And I don't agree that bare version numbers are best for Commons. >>>> > When the tag is checked out, it is not clear what component it is for. >>>> >>> >>> That's only true for SVN based components. But as I said, that is a >>> different discussion :-) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Forgot to say: the tags are also noted in the released POM >>>> >>>> So the 2.5/pom.xml is inconsistent with its location. >>>> >>>> If we want to change the convention going forward, we should vote on that. >>>> But we cannot/must not change history. >>>> >>> >>> Okay, so what is your proposal? Roll back the commit and then vote on a new >>> convention? >> >> Although we don't generally allow tags to be deleted, I think it would >> be OK here. >> The log message should make it clear what the 'real' tag is called. >> >> A convention needs discussion before a vote. >> >>> Benedikt >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> Benedikt >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:17 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>> > On 6 May 2016 at 13:16, <bimargul...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>> >> Author: bimargulies >>>> >>> >> Date: Fri May 6 12:16:39 2016 >>>> >>> >> New Revision: 1742534 >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1742534&view=rev >>>> >>> >> Log: >>>> >>> >> Honor both tagging conventions? >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > This is potentially confusing. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > I think it should have been discussed first. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >> Added: >>>> >>> >> commons/proper/io/tags/2.5/ >>>> >>> >> - copied from r1742533, commons/proper/io/tags/commons-io-2.5/ >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
