IMHO, we should just make "lazy RC" ie: 1. prepare it like a release (with a tag in SCM) 2. but no VOTE: just a one week TEST period, to let people discover and report if there is some issue
once we have one testing week, we can do a classical x.y.z release: there are few chances the release will be cancelled. Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 14 décembre 2014 20:29:45 Jason van Zyl a écrit : > Hi, > > The discussion keeps resurfacing about how we deal with failed releases so > I'll summarize how I think it should ultimately be done as a starting > point. > > I'll go over the cases we've encountered thus far: > > 1) The user case prefers non-disjunct sets of releases, or from our PoV > re-used versions. I believe people are confused by missing versions and > will always result in questions like "What happened to version X?", where X > is a non-viable build. Not many people read release notes, will not > self-serve and it will just be a lot of questions and confusion. The > typical user doesn't care about the question of whether a particular build > is viable or not. I think they naturally expect contiguous, increasing > versions when they update to new versions of a product. > > 2) The tester case prefers new versions but has tolerated re-used versions. > Testers for core only really have to deal with the binary distribution and > if it gets thrown away there's not much chance of local repository > inconsistency because the typical tester, who is not an integrator, isn't > going to depend on the new core release for anything. Running 3.2.4 doesn't > put anything related to 3.2.4 in your local repository. > > 3) The integrator case prefers new versions. Different content with the same > version is a violation of our immutability philosophy and can cause issues. > Even though this is very much contained at the moment let's be optimistic > and believe we will have many integrators that will test pre-released > versions. Igor is right in that it's not fun to keep track of this and why > should the burden be placed on the integrator. The answer is it shouldn't. > > 4) The release manager case prefers new versions. I have typically reused > versions because I believe 1) is true. It's a PITA to erase tags, shuffle > issues around in JIRA, and reset the POMs. I would prefer to just move > forward, but I have done it because the user confusion is not worth the > small effort it takes me to clean up a few resources. One hour for me > versus thousands of hours of confusion for all users. It's an easy > calculation. > > Taking all these cases into consideration so that all participants are > satisfied I think we ultimately want increasing and contiguous versions for > users, testers and integrators while the release manager does not have to > shuffle a bunch of resources around in the event of a non-viable build. > What we want is a form of continuous delivery where a version like 3.2.4 is > the version that we call it to the outside world (some refer to it as the > marketing version) and the qualifier changes from build to build so we > have: > > 3.2.4-qualifier > > And for simplicity's sake let's just say the qualifier is a build number so > we end up with: > > 3.2.4-01 > 3.2.4-02 > ... > 3.2.4-NN > > Every build is a complete build that can be released, and in the stream of > builds that are produced we decide that one is good enough for public > consumption. Nothing in the issue tracking or documentation needs to change > as it's still referred to as 3.2.4. People who download the distribution > aren't going to care what the exact versions say on the JARs but some > education might be required to tell people that something like 3.2.4 is > actually 3.2.4-05 if they want to refer to an artifact from 3.2.4. I don't > think making aliases to the marketing versions are a good idea and wouldn't > want to duplicate artifacts so that they can be referred to by the > marketing version. People will just become accustom to knowing a qualifier > is necessary to find the actual version. > > This is more how things work at Eclipse where if you look at something from > Jetty: > > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.eclipse.jetty%22%20AN > D%20a%3A%22jetty-servlet%22 > > You'll see that something like jetty-servlet 9.2.3 is actually referred to > as 9.2.3.v20140905. Jetty seems somewhat inconsistent with respect to > milestones but you get the idea. I think this works for all parties but > especially users where say we all happen to write blog entries about 3.2.4 > and it fails twice and we actually release 3.2.6. This is just so confusing > as anything that referred to 3.2.4 now really means 3.2.6 which is totally > inconsistent. I think skipping failed versions from the users perspective > like we are currently doing is just a recipe for a massive amount of > confusion and wasted time. Moving toward a stream based approach with a > marketing version and qualifiers for actual versions is really the only way > it can work for everyone. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > http://twitter.com/takari_io > --------------------------------------------------------- > > To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to > act in accordance with your thinking. > > -- Johann von Goethe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
