On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:36 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> > So, instead of tying the "incubating" marker to "incubating", I would favor > > a system of marker(s) indicating the code maturity (incl legal). So, for a > > podling release to be 1.2.3 (a la Groovy), the same release standard as > > TLPs are applied, but allow "alpha", "rc" or similar markers for podlings > > to "practice" releases. Probably not pushing those to mirrors, but > > otherwise identical in "process" for podling to get their grips on the > > release process. > > > I think this is a fair point, and probably close to what podling > communities do (when its a fairly new codebase). We often see releases in > the 0.x line, and in the 1+ lines. Its up to the podling to determine how > mature they are from a release numbering standpoint. I wouldn't want the > IPMC to enforce a versioning scheme. > It does however seem like a foundation wide versioning scheme may make > sense, or at least references to common references, e.g. semver, may make > sense as a recommendation to new podlings. Yeah, this is a tricky question. On one hand I don't like to dictate, but as a user I like to have a unified view of the world. Perhaps one or two DOAP entries would be a good way, and more strongly promote the DOAP and over time our common tooling could provide the unified view. A bit of "be a good citizen.... for your own sake" attitude. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
