Even if we had a -1 as long as I have the binding votes *as release manager* it would be my call whether to release or not.
Now *personally* I much rather release with consensus, but any committer can step up to be release manager for any of our components, so I would prefer if we can agree our current position (which we can agree to change in the future if needed) and just run with that. For me: * alpha is also about saying "we are not closed to adding something else before beta... but we will think hard on any proposed additions" * beta is about saying "only important bug fixes... or really low risk bug fixes after careful evaluation" * RC is "last chance to find showstoppers only"... if no showstopper then we drop and cut the release for real On Sun 26 Feb 2017 at 11:48, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 26/02/17 12:22, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > now I see your reasoning > > > > 3.3.n were expected to be final quality: they were not, they were > dropped (vote > > result was -1, result sent to trash) > > That is the difference here. The alpha-1 at the moment does not have any > -1 yet...(not that I seen one, correct please if I'm oversight > something)... > > So it should be released and published to central. > > If we have a -1 than this shouldn't be published to central cause we > have found issues which prevent using as a release... > > > > > > 3.5.0-alpha-n is expected to be alpha quality: from tests, we have the > alpha > > quality (IMHO even more quality, but not final quality), then the vote > will be > > positive *for an alpha* and we'll publish the result > > Agreed.. > > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > Le dimanche 26 février 2017, 11:44:48 CET Robert Scholte a écrit : > >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 04:58:24 +0100, Manfred Moser > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Imho it should go to Central just like any other release. All > components > >>> and everything. The version clearly tells thats its alpha and this > >>> allows for clean testing, embedding and so on. > >>> > >>> We have done it in the past and I dont see any reason for changing > this. > >> > >> Well, Karl Heinz's link only shows those which were deployed, not the > ones > >> which weren't. > >> Also, we've skipped a lot of versions in the 3.3.x, because we had a > >> different approach: just make that 3.3.n and simply burn it if there are > >> issues. We could have called this release 3.5.0, we see some issues and > >> decide if that should block the release. > >> > >> The jansi temp files might be a blocker for me if we are going to > publish > >> this version. > >> > >> Robert > >> > >>> Manfred > >>> > >>> Stephen Connolly wrote on 2017-02-25 16:05: > >>>> So if I am embedding Maven, how do I embed Maven 3.5.0-alpha-1? > >>>> > >>>> (I know it should not be a big issue as we should have the release > soon > >>>> anyway, but more from the principal POV) > >>>> > >>>> Consider the Jenkins "evil" job type plugin that has dependencies on > >>>> some > >>>> of the artifacts that are in the staging repository? If there is a > need > >>>> to > >>>> update the adapter libs for that to work with alpha-1, how would that > be > >>>> possible if we don't publish the artifacts at least somewhere? > >>>> On Sat 25 Feb 2017 at 23:23, Robert Scholte <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> It depends on what the task of Central is. If it for *dependencies*, > >>>>> there's no need to publish pre-final versions; don't think we should > >>>>> motive plugins to depend on alphas. > >>>>> > >>>>> AFAIK the common way to get a new version of Maven is via > >>>>> http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi and not via Central. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is also about hygiene. Not every artifact belongs in Central > >>>>> (we've > >>>>> seen continuous deployment-like releases), and pre-releases could > >>>>> belong > >>>>> to that group. > >>>>> > >>>>> Funny, just like Jigsaw there's a clear difference between libraries > >>>>> and > >>>>> applications; I don't mind treating them differently, especially in > >>>>> these > >>>>> unofficial release stages. > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:55:55 +0100, Karl Heinz Marbaise > >>>>> > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> based on the started discussion about either to bring 3.5.0-alpha-1 > >>>>> > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>>> Central or not I would suggest to discuss in a separate thread and > >>>>>> prevent using the VOTE's threads for that (as Stephen already > >>>>> > >>>>> mentioned). > >>>>> > >>>>>> Using Central: > >>>>>> o Everybody can use it and make tests on it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Using an other repository: > >>>>>> o Which one? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Using only dist area? Or something different? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WDY? > >>>>> > >>>>>> Based on earlier releases which had been in Central with alpha's: > >>>>> > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.apache.maven%22%2 > >>>>> 0AND%20a%3A%22apache-maven%22>>> > >>>>>> Kind regards > >>>>>> Karl Heinz Marbaise > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my phone > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Sent from my phone
