[numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've agreed to
> > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do
> > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been 1.0-beta1-release and
> > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate them or
> > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is and use
> > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> >
>
> IMO, the tagging should be:
>
> <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
>
> So:
>
> commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> commons-number-1.0-beta1
>

For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
$ git tag --list
shows a format akin to
MATH_3_6_1_RC

Gilles

> [...]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

garydgregory
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've
> agreed to
> > > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do
> > > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been
> 1.0-beta1-release and
> > > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate them
> or
> > > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is and
> use
> > > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> > >
> >
> > IMO, the tagging should be:
> >
> > <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
> >
> > So:
> >
> > commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> > commons-number-1.0-beta1
> >
>
> For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
> $ git tag --list
> shows a format akin to
> MATH_3_6_1_RC
>

I know and my opinion is that the format above is lame ;-)

Gary


>
> Gilles
>
> > [...]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've
> > agreed to
> > > > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do
> > > > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > > > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been
> > 1.0-beta1-release and
> > > > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate them
> > or
> > > > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is and
> > use
> > > > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> > > >
> > >
> > > IMO, the tagging should be:
> > >
> > > <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
> > >
> > > So:
> > >
> > > commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> > > commons-number-1.0-beta1
> > >
> >
> > For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
> > $ git tag --list
> > shows a format akin to
> > MATH_3_6_1_RC
> >
>
> I know and my opinion is that the format above is lame ;-)

I didn't particularly liked it either but I'm quite sure that it
wouldn't have sufficed for a change.

I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.

Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
and project, since they are in the repo's name?
And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
it first?
Thus:
    rc1_v1.0-beta1

Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

sebb-2-2
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 16:04, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've
> > > agreed to
> > > > > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do
> > > > > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > > > > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been
> > > 1.0-beta1-release and
> > > > > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate them
> > > or
> > > > > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is and
> > > use
> > > > > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > IMO, the tagging should be:
> > > >
> > > > <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
> > > >
> > > > So:
> > > >
> > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1
> > > >
> > >
> > > For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
> > > $ git tag --list
> > > shows a format akin to
> > > MATH_3_6_1_RC
> > >
> >
> > I know and my opinion is that the format above is lame ;-)
>
> I didn't particularly liked it either but I'm quite sure that it
> wouldn't have sufficed for a change.
>
> I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
>
> Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> it first?
> Thus:
>     rc1_v1.0-beta1

Please don't - sort order will be affected.

> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski-2
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:04 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've
> > > agreed to
> > > > > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what
> to do
> > > > > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > > > > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been
> > > 1.0-beta1-release and
> > > > > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate
> them
> > > or
> > > > > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is
> and
> > > use
> > > > > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > IMO, the tagging should be:
> > > >
> > > > <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
> > > >
> > > > So:
> > > >
> > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1
> > > >
> > >
> > > For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
> > > $ git tag --list
> > > shows a format akin to
> > > MATH_3_6_1_RC
> > >
> >
> > I know and my opinion is that the format above is lame ;-)
>
> I didn't particularly liked it either but I'm quite sure that it
> wouldn't have sufficed for a change.
>
> I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
>
> Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> it first?
> Thus:
>     rc1_v1.0-beta1
>

The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that when you
clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.

Gary


>
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 17:24, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 16:04, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 16:47, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:39 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 15:59, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 14:11, sebb <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:20, Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 23:37, Matt Juntunen
> > > > > > > > <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks. I think I have the gpg key sorted now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can probably start on RC2 tomorrow. It sounds like we've
> > > > agreed to
> > > > > > go with "1.0-beta1" for the release version so I'm wondering what to do
> > > > > > with the existing release branch (1.0-B1-release) and tag
> > > > > > (NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1). These should have probably been
> > > > 1.0-beta1-release and
> > > > > > NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. Is it possible to drop those and recreate them
> > > > or
> > > > > > would it be better to leave the current branch and tag names as-is and
> > > > use
> > > > > > the NUMBER_1_0_BETA1_RCX tag pattern going forward?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO, the tagging should be:
> > > > >
> > > > > <component-id>-<release>[-RC#]
> > > > >
> > > > > So:
> > > > >
> > > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1-RC1
> > > > > commons-number-1.0-beta1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For [Math] and [RNG] (and [Lang] until 3.10),
> > > > $ git tag --list
> > > > shows a format akin to
> > > > MATH_3_6_1_RC
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know and my opinion is that the format above is lame ;-)
> >
> > I didn't particularly liked it either but I'm quite sure that it
> > wouldn't have sufficed for a change.
> >
> > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> >
> > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > it first?
> > Thus:
> >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
>
> Please don't - sort order will be affected.

v1.0-beta1_rc1

?

Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
In reply to this post by garydgregory
> > [...]
> > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> >
> > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > it first?
> > Thus:
> >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> >
>
> The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that when you
> clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
>

Convincing.

So, I suggest

commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1

i.e.

<component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>

OK?

Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

garydgregory
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > > [...]
> > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > >
> > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > it first?
> > > Thus:
> > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > >
> >
> > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that when
> you
> > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> >
>
> Convincing.
>
> So, I suggest
>
> commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
>

For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
names, I prefer -'s for all separators.

Gary


>
> i.e.
>
> <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
>
> OK?
>
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
Hi.

Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:30, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
> > > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > > >
> > > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > > it first?
> > > > Thus:
> > > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > > >
> > >
> > > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that when
> > you
> > > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> > >
> >
> > Convincing.
> >
> > So, I suggest
> >
> > commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
> >
>
> For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
> names, I prefer -'s for all separators.

I beg to differ.
A hyphen is for joining, an underscore for separating, making
the string more parseable (both for humans and for scripts).

> >
> > i.e.
> >
> > <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

garydgregory
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:51 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:30, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > > > it first?
> > > > > Thus:
> > > > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that
> when
> > > you
> > > > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Convincing.
> > >
> > > So, I suggest
> > >
> > > commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
> > >
> >
> > For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
> > names, I prefer -'s for all separators.
>
> I beg to differ.
> A hyphen is for joining, an underscore for separating, making
> the string more parseable (both for humans and for scripts).
>

That's certainly not how Maven sees it, for example:
commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar
<https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/commons/commons-lang3/3.10/commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar>

I'd rather we stick to known conventions and not invent yet another one.

Gary


> > >
> > > i.e.
> > >
> > > <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
> > >
> > > OK?
> > >
> > > Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:55, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:51 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:30, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > > > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > > > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > > > > it first?
> > > > > > Thus:
> > > > > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Convincing.
> > > >
> > > > So, I suggest
> > > >
> > > > commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
> > > >
> > >
> > > For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
> > > names, I prefer -'s for all separators.
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> > A hyphen is for joining, an underscore for separating, making
> > the string more parseable (both for humans and for scripts).
> >
>
> That's certainly not how Maven sees it, for example:
> commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar
> <https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/commons/commons-lang3/3.10/commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar>

Not the same context: (git) tags vs (maven) artefacts.

> I'd rather we stick to known conventions and not invent yet another one.

I agree on the principle, but in the current case, you are the one
who proposes to depart from the convention which Commons has
been using since "forever". ;-)

I'm fine with whatever we decide, as long as we *all* agree to
use the same convention, and that it becomes a requirement
for subsequent RCs.

Regards,
Gilles

>
> Gary
>
>
> > > >
> > > > i.e.
> > > >
> > > > <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
> > > >
> > > > OK?
> > > >
> > > > Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Matt Juntunen
Hi all,

After reading all of the comments, here is what I propose for moving forward:

  *   Use version number "1.0-beta1" instead of "1.0-B1". (Gary, were you planning on updating the versioning guidelines?)
  *   Create a new release branch named "1.0-beta1-release" from the "1.0-B1-release" branch I created earlier.
  *   Drop branch 1.0-B1-release.
  *   Drop tag NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1, since it never went up for a vote, has the wrong version number, and is not needed.
  *   Merge Windows build fixes from master and fix site issues previously mentioned.
  *   Create new RC1 and tag as NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. (I like Gary's tag format but the format here with all uppercase letters and underscores seems to be used consistently across all commons projects.)
  *   Vote.

I'll start working on the build fixes locally, but I won't do any of the other changes until it seems like we have a consensus on this approach. Does anyone have any comments or objections?

Regards,
Matt J

________________________________
From: Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 5:53 PM
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:55, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:51 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:30, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > > > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > > > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > > > > it first?
> > > > > > Thus:
> > > > > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Convincing.
> > > >
> > > > So, I suggest
> > > >
> > > > commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
> > > >
> > >
> > > For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
> > > names, I prefer -'s for all separators.
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> > A hyphen is for joining, an underscore for separating, making
> > the string more parseable (both for humans and for scripts).
> >
>
> That's certainly not how Maven sees it, for example:
> commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar
> <https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/commons/commons-lang3/3.10/commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar>

Not the same context: (git) tags vs (maven) artefacts.

> I'd rather we stick to known conventions and not invent yet another one.

I agree on the principle, but in the current case, you are the one
who proposes to depart from the convention which Commons has
been using since "forever". ;-)

I'm fine with whatever we decide, as long as we *all* agree to
use the same convention, and that it becomes a requirement
for subsequent RCs.

Regards,
Gilles

>
> Gary
>
>
> > > >
> > > > i.e.
> > > >
> > > > <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
> > > >
> > > > OK?
> > > >
> > > > Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Matt Juntunen
I have this ready to go on branch 1.0-beta1. Based on the discussions and the git tag vote, I plan on using the tag "commons-numbers-1.0-beta1-rc1" for the release candidate and "rel/commons-numbers-1.0-beta1" for the actual release. I'll wait until tomorrow before creating the actual release candidate in case anyone has any objections.

Alex, I see you made some more commits to master (updating LICENSE and NOTICE file names and some changes to Complex). Should I pull those into the release?

Regards,
Matt
________________________________
From: Matt Juntunen <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:23 PM
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Hi all,

After reading all of the comments, here is what I propose for moving forward:

  *   Use version number "1.0-beta1" instead of "1.0-B1". (Gary, were you planning on updating the versioning guidelines?)
  *   Create a new release branch named "1.0-beta1-release" from the "1.0-B1-release" branch I created earlier.
  *   Drop branch 1.0-B1-release.
  *   Drop tag NUMBERS_1_0_B1_RC1, since it never went up for a vote, has the wrong version number, and is not needed.
  *   Merge Windows build fixes from master and fix site issues previously mentioned.
  *   Create new RC1 and tag as NUMBERS_1_0_BETA1_RC1. (I like Gary's tag format but the format here with all uppercase letters and underscores seems to be used consistently across all commons projects.)
  *   Vote.

I'll start working on the build fixes locally, but I won't do any of the other changes until it seems like we have a consensus on this approach. Does anyone have any comments or objections?

Regards,
Matt J

________________________________
From: Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 5:53 PM
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:55, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:51 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 22:30, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > I'm fine with improving the (common?) convention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not dropping the redundant reference to the component
> > > > > > and project, since they are in the repo's name?
> > > > > > And how about focusing on the tag's purpose by mentioning
> > > > > > it first?
> > > > > > Thus:
> > > > > >     rc1_v1.0-beta1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The argument for having the component name in the tag name is that
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > clone the repo, you get a 'nice' directory name by default.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Convincing.
> > > >
> > > > So, I suggest
> > > >
> > > > commons-numbers_v1.0-beta1_rc1
> > > >
> > >
> > > For me, I find the mix of - and _ lame and since we use - in component
> > > names, I prefer -'s for all separators.
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> > A hyphen is for joining, an underscore for separating, making
> > the string more parseable (both for humans and for scripts).
> >
>
> That's certainly not how Maven sees it, for example:
> commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar
> <https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/commons/commons-lang3/3.10/commons-lang3-3.10-javadoc.jar>

Not the same context: (git) tags vs (maven) artefacts.

> I'd rather we stick to known conventions and not invent yet another one.

I agree on the principle, but in the current case, you are the one
who proposes to depart from the convention which Commons has
been using since "forever". ;-)

I'm fine with whatever we decide, as long as we *all* agree to
use the same convention, and that it becomes a requirement
for subsequent RCs.

Regards,
Gilles

>
> Gary
>
>
> > > >
> > > > i.e.
> > > >
> > > > <component id>_v<version>[-beta<m>]_rc<n>
> > > >
> > > > OK?
> > > >
> > > > Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [numbers] 1.0-B1 Release Proposal

Gilles Sadowski-2
Hello.

Le jeu. 2 avr. 2020 à 13:53, Matt Juntunen <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> I have this ready to go on branch 1.0-beta1. Based on the discussions and the git tag vote, I plan on using the tag "commons-numbers-1.0-beta1-rc1" for the release candidate

+1

> and "rel/commons-numbers-1.0-beta1" for the actual release.

Yes, but not until there is a release. :-)

> I'll wait until tomorrow before creating the actual release candidate in case anyone has any objections.
>
> Alex, I see you made some more commits to master (updating LICENSE and NOTICE file names and some changes to Complex). Should I pull those into the release?

Yes.
The least discrepancy with "master", the better.

Thanks,
Gilles

>>>> [...]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12