java-parent-project-v3 -> java-parent-project : redux

[Tom Zeller]

> I had thought we had decided not to do a revamp this time round, in order to save time, but it's a long time since the last discussion and I could be misremembering.

That is basically my summary too.

After reviewing the dev list threads again, given the discussion about
moving to "tighter" or semantic versioning of the parent POM, having a
version number in the artifactId seemed "wronger" than before, and
that is primarily what I am trying to address with the
project/artifact renaming.

As I learned with Nexus, asking the right way is important, and I have
been a bit or more of a bumbler.

> You need to clarify, though, whether you're talking about just the artifactId or both the artifactId and the project name.

Yes, I am suggesting renaming the project in Subversion, Eclipse
(.project), and Maven (pom.xml).

> I assume the repository will remain java-parent-projects.

Yes, the repository would be :

java-parent-projects/
 java-parent-project
 java-parent-project-v2

> I'm not so happy with the half-way house you're proposing between "proper" version numbers as used by the rest of our projects, and the whole number scheme we've previously used for parent projects.
>
> If we're going to move towards a branching strategy for parent projects, and therefore use multi-component version numbers for them at any point, I think we should use semantic versioning for the artifacts as is our settled policy for everything else. That would imply the version becoming X.0.0 for some value of X; I'm agnostic as to whether that should be 2, 5 or 7 but I do not think we should use something that looks like an incrementing number from the previous scheme.

> Actual proposal: tag/release as 5.0.0, then revert the POM version to 5.1-SNAPSHOT for continuing development. (I think this is consistent with our versioning policy; of course I could be wrong on some of the details)

I think the options for parent POM artifact coordinates are :

 net.shibboleth:parent:5
 net.shibboleth:parent:5.0
 net.shibboleth:parent:5.0.0
 net.shibboleth:parent-v3:1
 net.shibboleth:parent-v3:1.0
 net.shibboleth:parent-v3:1.0.0

The current agreement we have is :

 net.shibboleth:parent-v3:1

We have released :

 net.shibboleth:parent:1
 net.shibboleth:parent:2
 net.shibboleth:parent:3
 net.shibboleth:parent:4
 net.shibboleth:parent-v2:1

In this thread I proposed

 net.shibboleth:parent:5

Seems like

 net.shibboleth:parent:5.0.0

would be the compromise proposal.

I am not that familiar with the Apache process, but I could start a
[discuss] and [vote] thread and try to catch people today. Otherwise,
I should stick with the "agreement" we had for
net.shibboleth:parent-v3:1 to tag tomorrow.

>> if we wanted a single parent,
>
> I think that would turn out to be harder than you imagine. Java compiler transitions tend to be where we rip out surrounding tooling which isn't being maintained, for example.

Right.

>> On the dev call where we did talk about this issue, the waters seemed
>> muddy enough that I dropped it. I guess we need longer calls ;-)
>
> Or more formal minuting of decisions.

Understood. I have been trying to keep the Friday calls informal, out
of respect for other peoples schedules, to not force people into
attending in order to have a say in decision making, but that does not
preclude better minutes.

Again, I am aware of my bumbling, apologies.