Re-using version numbers (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Archiva 1.2.2 (Take 2))

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Deng Ching<oching@...> wrote:

> The staging repository where the binaries, including the sources, signatures
> and checksums, is here:
>
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/staged-archiva/

I'm having that uncomfortable "Do I have the *right* 1.2.2?" feeling.
It looks like 1.2.2 was made available for download on Aug 24th and
replaced on Aug 27th.  That means we potentially have two different
1.2.2's floating around out there.

I added a line to the release process wiki advising against re-using
version numbers after a version has been made available for public
download.  IMO we should have just moved on to 1.2.3 after a blocking
issue was found in 1.2.2.  Version numbers are free. :)

--
Wendy

[brettporter]

On 31/08/2009, at 2:18 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Deng Ching<oching@...> wrote:
>
>> The staging repository where the binaries, including the sources,  
>> signatures
>> and checksums, is here:
>>
>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/staged-archiva/
>
> I'm having that uncomfortable "Do I have the *right* 1.2.2?" feeling.
> It looks like 1.2.2 was made available for download on Aug 24th and
> replaced on Aug 27th.  That means we potentially have two different
> 1.2.2's floating around out there.
>
> I added a line to the release process wiki advising against re-using
> version numbers after a version has been made available for public
> download.  IMO we should have just moved on to 1.2.3 after a blocking
> issue was found in 1.2.2.  Version numbers are free. :)

While that process was adopted in Continuum, it has never been adopted  
here. Are you suggesting we change the release process in a similar way?

You can check if you got the right one by checking the checksums or  
signatures against the current distribution site. Perhaps we can bake  
the SVN revision and time/date in as well...

- Brett

[Wendy Smoak-3]

IMO It's a fundamental Maven thing, nothing to do with what other
projects have decided... once a release exists, it is never changed.
The release process is on a wiki, so this was just a heads up that I
made a change.  I'm not usually the one doing the work around here, so
feel free to change it back (but I'll probably forget and complain
every time it happens.)  -Wendy

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:

> On 31/08/2009, at 2:18 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Deng Ching<oching@...> wrote:
>>
>>> The staging repository where the binaries, including the sources,
>>> signatures
>>> and checksums, is here:
>>>
>>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/staged-archiva/
>>
>> I'm having that uncomfortable "Do I have the *right* 1.2.2?" feeling.
>> It looks like 1.2.2 was made available for download on Aug 24th and
>> replaced on Aug 27th.  That means we potentially have two different
>> 1.2.2's floating around out there.
>>
>> I added a line to the release process wiki advising against re-using
>> version numbers after a version has been made available for public
>> download.  IMO we should have just moved on to 1.2.3 after a blocking
>> issue was found in 1.2.2.  Version numbers are free. :)
>
> While that process was adopted in Continuum, it has never been adopted here.
> Are you suggesting we change the release process in a similar way?
>
> You can check if you got the right one by checking the checksums or
> signatures against the current distribution site. Perhaps we can bake the
> SVN revision and time/date in as well...
>
> - Brett
>
>

[Deng Ching-2]

Thanks Wendy! I'm sorry I got confused with the versioning, I actually had
that dilemma of whether to discard 1.2.2 and move on to 1.2.3 but I didn't
see anything in the old threads. I should have just asked on the list :)

-Deng

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@...> wrote:

> IMO It's a fundamental Maven thing, nothing to do with what other
> projects have decided... once a release exists, it is never changed.
> The release process is on a wiki, so this was just a heads up that I
> made a change.  I'm not usually the one doing the work around here, so
> feel free to change it back (but I'll probably forget and complain
> every time it happens.)  -Wendy
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Brett Porter<brett@...> wrote:
> > On 31/08/2009, at 2:18 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Deng Ching<oching@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The staging repository where the binaries, including the sources,
> >>> signatures
> >>> and checksums, is here:
> >>>
> >>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/staged-archiva/
> >>
> >> I'm having that uncomfortable "Do I have the *right* 1.2.2?" feeling.
> >> It looks like 1.2.2 was made available for download on Aug 24th and
> >> replaced on Aug 27th.  That means we potentially have two different
> >> 1.2.2's floating around out there.
> >>
> >> I added a line to the release process wiki advising against re-using
> >> version numbers after a version has been made available for public
> >> download.  IMO we should have just moved on to 1.2.3 after a blocking
> >> issue was found in 1.2.2.  Version numbers are free. :)
> >
> > While that process was adopted in Continuum, it has never been adopted
> here.
> > Are you suggesting we change the release process in a similar way?
> >
> > You can check if you got the right one by checking the checksums or
> > signatures against the current distribution site. Perhaps we can bake the
> > SVN revision and time/date in as well...
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> >
>

[brettporter]

On 31/08/2009, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> IMO It's a fundamental Maven thing, nothing to do with what other
> projects have decided... once a release exists, it is never changed.
> The release process is on a wiki, so this was just a heads up that I
> made a change.  I'm not usually the one doing the work around here, so
> feel free to change it back (but I'll probably forget and complain
> every time it happens.)  -Wendy

But my point was that Archiva has never done it that way before. I  
don't disagree with your reasoning (though it's not in a production  
Maven repository, it is in at least Deng's local repository and maybe  
others), but if we're going to adopt different versioning it's  
something that really should be documented so that it is applied  
consistently and users don't get confused.

- Brett