Vamsi, In general I think we agree on how things should be handled when schema changes. Also, the patch I looked at had schema changes made in the existing .xsd files and I assumed that the new files would be introduced in trunk only. But since nobody else has an issue with that change, that's fine. We just have to remember to publish the new schemas on the website and (eventually) update the eclipse plugin.
Jarek On 9/21/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From "... I can live with introducing an optional element to an existing > schema" in your original e-mail, I assume that you are not totally against > the schema changes. From what I understand, when a schema is changed > (except for some corrections in comments or some annotations), it can no > longer have the same version. Others please correct me if my understanding > is wrong. Also, before I started working on this issue, I have raised a > concern that the schema change may come in the way of the issue getting > fixed in 2.0.2. But then the priority seemed to be not to break backward > compatibility of plugins which turned out to be no priority at all the as > the few plugins that we may want to preserve backward compatibility won't > run on G 2.0.1. To not come in the way of backward compatibility, I > proposed a patch for branches\2.0 that did not change any interfaces. But > then some other changes (for e.g. Holder class) have already broken > deserialization of config.ser's from G 2.0.1 in G 2.0.2. I have even given > 72 hours, before committing the final patches, for anyone to raise any > concerns they have in the fix going into branches\2.0. > > About what should go into a patch/minor release, I guess it is not > restricted to bug fixes alone. > > Vamsi > > > On 9/21/07, Jarek Gawor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I meant the geronimo-jetty-2.0.1.xsd, geronimo-web-2.0.1.xsd , and > > geronimo-tomcat-2.0.1.xsd. > > > > I guess the main question is what is our versioning policy (if any) > > and what should and should not go into a patch and/or minor release. > > > > Jarek > > > > On 9/21/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/21/07, Jarek Gawor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure about these changes. Personally, I'm against any schema > > > > changes in branches/2.0 but I can live with introducing an optional > > > > element to an existing schema. However, introducing yet another schema > > > > in branches/2.0 seems wrong to me. > > > > > > I am not sure what this "yet another schema" is referring to. > > > > > > > Also, in trunk I would change the namespace to 2.1 (or something like > > > > that) as we might make even more changes to the schema before we > > > > release. > > > > > > IIUC changing the namespace in trunk should happen if there are more > changes > > > to these schemas post 2.0.2 release. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Jarek > > > > > > > > > > >
