On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> 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. > > I'm not sure what you mean by DOAP entries. Do you have an example? John > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
