Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive

EA versioning

Classic

List

Threaded

51 messages Options

123

yzhdanov

EA versioning

Guys,

When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that we
had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to many
reasons.

I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the
advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way.

Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our
project wiki.

1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but point
and/or patch releases may omit this step.

2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release gets
100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
procedures work and TC is in green state.

3. EA version names should be the following:

* apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
* apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
* ...
* apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15

Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.

4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for release
procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and after
approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.

5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know that
there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for opinions,
but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional repos and
make everything transparent.

Thanks!

--Yakov

Alexey Kuznetsov-2

Re: EA versioning

Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???

Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?

Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that we
> had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to many
> reasons.
>
> I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the
> advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way.
>
> Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our
> project wiki.
>
> 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but point
> and/or patch releases may omit this step.
>
> 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release gets
> 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
> procedures work and TC is in green state.
>
> 3. EA version names should be the following:
>
> * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> * ...
> * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
>
> Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
>
> 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for release
> procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and after
> approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
>
> 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know that
> there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for opinions,
> but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional repos and
> make everything transparent.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Yakov
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

yzhdanov

Re: EA versioning

This is how voting for releases works. RC designates that build is under
vote.

--Yakov

2015-12-01 12:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:

> Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
>
> Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
>
> Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that we
> > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to many
> > reasons.
> >
> > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the
> > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way.
> >
> > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our
> > project wiki.
> >
> > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but point
> > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> >
> > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release gets
> > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
> > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> >
> > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> >
> > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > * ...
> > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> >
> > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> >
> > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for release
> > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and
> after
> > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> >
> > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know that
> > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for
> opinions,
> > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional repos
> and
> > make everything transparent.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>

Sergey Kozlov

Re: EA versioning

In reply to this post by Alexey Kuznetsov-2

Alexey.

We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

--
Sergey Kozlov

Alexey Kuznetsov-2

Re: EA versioning

Ok, now I see.

But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead "-rc1"?
Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alexey.
>
> We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> >
> > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> >
> > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that
> we
> > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to
> many
> > > reasons.
> > >
> > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the
> > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way.
> > >
> > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our
> > > project wiki.
> > >
> > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but point
> > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > >
> > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release gets
> > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
> > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > >
> > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > >
> > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > * ...
> > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > >
> > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > >
> > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for
> release
> > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and
> > after
> > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > >
> > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know
> that
> > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for
> > opinions,
> > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional repos
> > and
> > > make everything transparent.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sergey Kozlov
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

Anton Vinogradov

Re: EA versioning

RC means Release Candidate.
After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary becomes release.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Ok, now I see.
>
> But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead "-rc1"?
> Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Alexey.
> >
> > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> > >
> > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> > >
> > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion that
> > we
> > > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due to
> > many
> > > > reasons.
> > > >
> > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and the
> > > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper way.
> > > >
> > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on our
> > > > project wiki.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but
> point
> > > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > > >
> > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release
> gets
> > > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
> > > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > > >
> > > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > > >
> > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > > * ...
> > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > > >
> > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > > >
> > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for
> > release
> > > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted and
> > > after
> > > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > > >
> > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know
> > that
> > > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for
> > > opinions,
> > > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional
> repos
> > > and
> > > > make everything transparent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sergey Kozlov
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>

Alexey Kuznetsov-2

Re: EA versioning

I asked my question because I never see EA and RC in one name. Only one of
them.
But seems it is OK to have such name.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> RC means Release Candidate.
> After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary becomes release.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, now I see.
> >
> > But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead "-rc1"?
> > Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Alexey.
> > >
> > > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> > > >
> > > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> > > >
> > > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion
> that
> > > we
> > > > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due
> to
> > > many
> > > > > reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and
> the
> > > > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper
> way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on
> our
> > > > > project wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but
> > point
> > > > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming release
> > gets
> > > > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that build/deployment
> > > > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > > > * ...
> > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > > > >
> > > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for
> > > release
> > > > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted
> and
> > > > after
> > > > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I know
> > > that
> > > > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for
> > > > opinions,
> > > > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional
> > repos
> > > > and
> > > > > make everything transparent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sergey Kozlov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

Sergi

Re: EA versioning

Guys,

The only issue I see here is Maven versions ordering if we are going to
release EA maven binaries.
As far as I understand *ignite-1.5.0-ea* will be **greater** than final
*ignite-1.5.0* which is wrong.
This happens because maven (since 3.2 AFAIK) looks for well-known
qualifiers for ordering
and it seems that EA is not in the list. See [1] and [2] for details.
Probably we have to use *beta* or *milestone* instead of EA and it will
work for us.

Sergi

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/31482463/4012372
[2]
http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.maven/maven-artifact/3.3.3/org/apache/maven/artifact/versioning/ComparableVersion.java

2015-12-01 15:51 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:

> I asked my question because I never see EA and RC in one name. Only one of
> them.
> But seems it is OK to have such name.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > RC means Release Candidate.
> > After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary becomes release.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, now I see.
> > >
> > > But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead
> "-rc1"?
> > > Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alexey.
> > > >
> > > > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to conclusion
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release due
> > to
> > > > many
> > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions and
> > the
> > > > > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a proper
> > way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results on
> > our
> > > > > > project wiki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process, but
> > > point
> > > > > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming
> release
> > > gets
> > > > > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that
> build/deployment
> > > > > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > > > > * ...
> > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have for
> > > > release
> > > > > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be submitted
> > and
> > > > > after
> > > > > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I
> know
> > > > that
> > > > > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning for
> > > > > opinions,
> > > > > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing additional
> > > repos
> > > > > and
> > > > > > make everything transparent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>

Anton Vinogradov

Re: EA versioning

Sergi,

Sounds bad.
I've made decision to use EA looking on Hazelcast's versions (
http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.hazelcast/hazelcast).

Seems we have to use 'alpha' or use 'ga' at release. Or ignore this case
and recomend users to use explicit version.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Guys,
>
> The only issue I see here is Maven versions ordering if we are going to
> release EA maven binaries.
> As far as I understand *ignite-1.5.0-ea* will be **greater** than final
> *ignite-1.5.0* which is wrong.
> This happens because maven (since 3.2 AFAIK) looks for well-known
> qualifiers for ordering
> and it seems that EA is not in the list. See [1] and [2] for details.
> Probably we have to use *beta* or *milestone* instead of EA and it will
> work for us.
>
> Sergi
>
> [1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/31482463/4012372
> [2]
>
> http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.maven/maven-artifact/3.3.3/org/apache/maven/artifact/versioning/ComparableVersion.java
>
>
>
>
> 2015-12-01 15:51 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I asked my question because I never see EA and RC in one name. Only one
> of
> > them.
> > But seems it is OK to have such name.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > RC means Release Candidate.
> > > After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary becomes
> release.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, now I see.
> > > >
> > > > But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead
> > "-rc1"?
> > > > Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alexey.
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to
> conclusion
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release
> due
> > > to
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a
> proper
> > > way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results
> on
> > > our
> > > > > > > project wiki.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process,
> but
> > > > point
> > > > > > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming
> > release
> > > > gets
> > > > > > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that
> > build/deployment
> > > > > > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > > > > > * ...
> > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have
> for
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be
> submitted
> > > and
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven. I
> > know
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning
> for
> > > > > > opinions,
> > > > > > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing
> additional
> > > > repos
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > make everything transparent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>

Sergi

Re: EA versioning

It is sad that we are learning from bad examples like hazelcast instead of
thinking ourselves and making decisions that fast..

Sergi

2015-12-01 17:41 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Sergi,
>
> Sounds bad.
> I've made decision to use EA looking on Hazelcast's versions (
> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.hazelcast/hazelcast).
>
> Seems we have to use 'alpha' or use 'ga' at release. Or ignore this case
> and recomend users to use explicit version.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > The only issue I see here is Maven versions ordering if we are going to
> > release EA maven binaries.
> > As far as I understand *ignite-1.5.0-ea* will be **greater** than final
> > *ignite-1.5.0* which is wrong.
> > This happens because maven (since 3.2 AFAIK) looks for well-known
> > qualifiers for ordering
> > and it seems that EA is not in the list. See [1] and [2] for details.
> > Probably we have to use *beta* or *milestone* instead of EA and it will
> > work for us.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> > [1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/31482463/4012372
> > [2]
> >
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.maven/maven-artifact/3.3.3/org/apache/maven/artifact/versioning/ComparableVersion.java
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015-12-01 15:51 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > I asked my question because I never see EA and RC in one name. Only one
> > of
> > > them.
> > > But seems it is OK to have such name.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > RC means Release Candidate.
> > > > After successful vote RC cut from name, and this binary becomes
> > release.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, now I see.
> > > > >
> > > > > But just one more question it is possible to add "-vote1" instead
> > > "-rc1"?
> > > > > Or I just do not understand what is abbreviated as "-rc1" ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Kozlov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexey.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We don't mix RC and EA. RCX just added to package for vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks good for me, but why do we need "-rc1" ???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe if vote failed just increase EA number?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mixing EA and RC in one name - looks (IMHO) confusing for me...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When trying to release Apache Ignite 1.5.0 we came to
> > conclusion
> > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > had to proceed with EA version rather than with final release
> > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that everyone understands the purposes of EA versions
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > advantages that we gain if we establish this process in a
> > proper
> > > > way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now I see the following points. Let's discuss and put results
> > on
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > project wiki.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Complex features will be released only through EA process,
> > but
> > > > > point
> > > > > > > > and/or patch releases may omit this step.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. The first EA (EA1?) build can be released when upcoming
> > > release
> > > > > gets
> > > > > > > > 100% code/feature complete and it is verified that
> > > build/deployment
> > > > > > > > procedures work and TC is in green state.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. EA version names should be the following:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA1
> > > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA2
> > > > > > > > * ...
> > > > > > > > * apache-ignite-X.X.X-EA15
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where X is a number. Index after EA makes ordering intuitive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. EA versions go through the same voting process as we have
> > for
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > procedure now. E.g. apache-ignite-1.5.0-EA1-rc1 will be
> > submitted
> > > > and
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > approval "-rc1" part gets stripped.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. I would prefer EA versions being available through maven.
> I
> > > know
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > there are different opinions on this and I know the reasoning
> > for
> > > > > > > opinions,
> > > > > > > > but from my standpoint this will save us from managing
> > additional
> > > > > repos
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > make everything transparent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>

yzhdanov

Re: EA versioning

In reply to this post by Anton Vinogradov

Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice.

However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven or
version range?

--Yakov

Raul Kripalani

Re: EA versioning

It is different when the keyword is part of the version (1.1.1.RELEASE),
like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).

Maven treats both cases differently.
On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice.
>
> However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven or
> version range?
>
> --Yakov
>

Sergi

Re: EA versioning

Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning because
Maven and OSGi versions are
somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]

[1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea

Sergi

2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:

> It is different when the keyword is part of the version (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
>
> Maven treats both cases differently.
> On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice.
> >
> > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven or
> > version range?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>

yzhdanov

Re: EA versioning

I have got the following output:

$ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1
1.5.0-final

Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison
result:

1. 1.5.0 == 1.5

1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1

2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1

1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final

3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5

--Yakov

2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:

> Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning because
> Maven and OSGi versions are
> somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
>
> [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
>
> > It is different when the keyword is part of the version (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
> >
> > Maven treats both cases differently.
> > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice.
> > >
> > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven or
> > > version range?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>

dsetrakyan

Re: EA versioning

AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1 and
standard versions, like 1.5.0.

According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such as
“-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers. This
means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than 1.5.0. Seems like the versioning
scheme proposed by Yakov would work.

[1] -
https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1212/core/MAVEN/maven_version.htm#MAVEN8855

D.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have got the following output:
>
> $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
> org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1
> 1.5.0-final
>
> Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison
> result:
>
> 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5
>
> 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1
>
> 2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1
>
> 1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final
>
> 3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning because
> > Maven and OSGi versions are
> > somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
> >
> > [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> > 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > It is different when the keyword is part of the version
> (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> > > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
> > >
> > > Maven treats both cases differently.
> > > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good choice.
> > > >
> > > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven
> or
> > > > version range?
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Sergi

Re: EA versioning

Dmitriy,

Yakov just sent maven output which says that

*1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1*

*1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final*

That's exactly what I was talking about.

Sergi

2015-12-01 18:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:

> AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1 and
> standard versions, like 1.5.0.
>
> According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such as
> “-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers. This
> means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than 1.5.0. Seems like the versioning
> scheme proposed by Yakov would work.
>
> [1] -
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1212/core/MAVEN/maven_version.htm#MAVEN8855
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I have got the following output:
> >
> > $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
> > org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1
> > 1.5.0-final
> >
> > Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison
> > result:
> >
> > 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5
> >
> > 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1
> >
> > 2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1
> >
> > 1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final
> >
> > 3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning
> because
> > > Maven and OSGi versions are
> > > somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
> > >
> > > [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
> > >
> > > Sergi
> > >
> > > 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > It is different when the keyword is part of the version
> > (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> > > > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
> > > >
> > > > Maven treats both cases differently.
> > > > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good
> choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in maven
> > or
> > > > > version range?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

yzhdanov

Re: EA versioning

Guys, let's name early access versions as "x.x.x-aN" or "x.x.x-bN". This
will give us transparent version comparison. Serj, thanks for a good point!

As far as upcoming release I suggest releasing "1.5.0-b1" since in my
understanding it is very close to final release and is higher than "betta"
quality.

You can find sample comparisons below.
$ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0-ea 1.5.0
1.5.0-b1 1.5.0-a2

Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison
result:

1. 1.5.0-ea == 1.5-ea

1.5.0-ea > 1.5.0

2. 1.5.0 == 1.5

1.5.0 > 1.5.0-b1

3. 1.5.0-b1 == 1.5-beta-1

1.5.0-b1 > 1.5.0-a2

4. 1.5.0-a2 == 1.5-alpha-2
-- Yakov

Sergi

Re: EA versioning

In reply to this post by Sergi

The most promising way which should work for both Maven and OSGi is to use
*beta* for EA and use *final *for releases.

http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-beta1
http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0&b=1.5.0-beta1

Sergi

2015-12-01 18:16 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:

> Dmitriy,
>
> Yakov just sent maven output which says that
>
> *1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1*
>
> *1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final*
>
> That's exactly what I was talking about.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-12-01 18:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
>
>> AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1 and
>> standard versions, like 1.5.0.
>>
>> According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such as
>> “-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers. This
>> means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than 1.5.0. Seems like the versioning
>> scheme proposed by Yakov would work.
>>
>> [1] -
>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1212/core/MAVEN/maven_version.htm#MAVEN8855
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I have got the following output:
>> >
>> > $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
>> > org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1
>> > 1.5.0-final
>> >
>> > Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and comparison
>> > result:
>> >
>> > 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5
>> >
>> > 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1
>> >
>> > 2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1
>> >
>> > 1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final
>> >
>> > 3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5
>> >
>> > --Yakov
>> >
>> > 2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning
>> because
>> > > Maven and OSGi versions are
>> > > somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
>> > >
>> > > [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
>> > >
>> > > Sergi
>> > >
>> > > 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > > > It is different when the keyword is part of the version
>> > (1.1.1.RELEASE),
>> > > > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
>> > > >
>> > > > Maven treats both cases differently.
>> > > > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good
>> choice.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in
>> maven
>> > or
>> > > > > version range?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --Yakov
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

dsetrakyan

Re: EA versioning

I like “1.5.0-b1”, etc. Let’s use this for now, as it seems to work.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The most promising way which should work for both Maven and OSGi is to use
> *beta* for EA and use *final *for releases.
>
> http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-beta1
> http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0&b=1.5.0-beta1
>
> Sergi
>
>
> 2015-12-01 18:16 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Yakov just sent maven output which says that
> >
> > *1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1*
> >
> > *1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final*
> >
> > That's exactly what I was talking about.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> > 2015-12-01 18:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1
> and
> >> standard versions, like 1.5.0.
> >>
> >> According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such
> as
> >> “-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers.
> This
> >> means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than 1.5.0. Seems like the versioning
> >> scheme proposed by Yakov would work.
> >>
> >> [1] -
> >>
> >>
> https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1212/core/MAVEN/maven_version.htm#MAVEN8855
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have got the following output:
> >> >
> >> > $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
> >> > org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0 1.5.0-EA1
> >> > 1.5.0-final
> >> >
> >> > Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and
> comparison
> >> > result:
> >> >
> >> > 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5
> >> >
> >> > 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1
> >> >
> >> > 2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1
> >> >
> >> > 1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final
> >> >
> >> > 3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5
> >> >
> >> > --Yakov
> >> >
> >> > 2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
> >> >
> >> > > Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning
> >> because
> >> > > Maven and OSGi versions are
> >> > > somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
> >> > >
> >> > > Sergi
> >> > >
> >> > > 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > It is different when the keyword is part of the version
> >> > (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> >> > > > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Maven treats both cases differently.
> >> > > > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good
> >> choice.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in
> >> maven
> >> > or
> >> > > > > version range?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --Yakov
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Anton Vinogradov

Re: EA versioning

Sergi,

Is *b1* equals to *beta1* in OSGi case?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I like “1.5.0-b1”, etc. Let’s use this for now, as it seems to work.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > The most promising way which should work for both Maven and OSGi is to
> use
> > *beta* for EA and use *final *for releases.
> >
> > http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-beta1
> > http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0&b=1.5.0-beta1
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> >
> > 2015-12-01 18:16 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > Yakov just sent maven output which says that
> > >
> > > *1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1*
> > >
> > > *1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final*
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I was talking about.
> > >
> > > Sergi
> > >
> > > 2015-12-01 18:12 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> AFAIK, in maven you can have versions with qualifiers, like 1.5.0-ea1
> > and
> > >> standard versions, like 1.5.0.
> > >>
> > >> According to this article [1], all the versions with a qualifier, such
> > as
> > >> “-ea” will be considered older than the versions without qualifiers.
> > This
> > >> means that 1.5.0-ea1 will be older than 1.5.0. Seems like the
> versioning
> > >> scheme proposed by Yakov would work.
> > >>
> > >> [1] -
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1212/core/MAVEN/maven_version.htm#MAVEN8855
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I have got the following output:
> > >> >
> > >> > $ java -cp maven-core-3.3.9.jar:maven-artifact-3.3.9.jar
> > >> > org.apache.maven.artifact.versioning.ComparableVersion 1.5.0
> 1.5.0-EA1
> > >> > 1.5.0-final
> > >> >
> > >> > Display parameters as parsed by Maven (in canonical form) and
> > comparison
> > >> > result:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. 1.5.0 == 1.5
> > >> >
> > >> > 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-EA1
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. 1.5.0-EA1 == 1.5-ea-1
> > >> >
> > >> > 1.5.0-EA1 > 1.5.0-final
> > >> >
> > >> > 3. 1.5.0-final == 1.5
> > >> >
> > >> > --Yakov
> > >> >
> > >> > 2015-12-01 18:07 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]
> >:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Also it is an interesting subject with respect to OSGi versioning
> > >> because
> > >> > > Maven and OSGi versions are
> > >> > > somewhat conflicting as well. See [1]
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1] http://versionatorr.appspot.com/?a=1.5.0-final&b=1.5.0-ea
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sergi
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2015-12-01 17:56 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > It is different when the keyword is part of the version
> > >> > (1.1.1.RELEASE),
> > >> > > > like Spring, and when it's a qualifier (1.1.1-RELEASE).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Maven treats both cases differently.
> > >> > > > On 1 Dec 2015 14:52, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Sergi, very good point! Guys, it seems that EA is not a good
> > >> choice.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > However, how many of you have ever used RELEASE as version in
> > >> maven
> > >> > or
> > >> > > > > version range?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --Yakov
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

123