I agree that it might have been preferable to have had different names,
and version numbers would ideally be as rigorously enforced as you say.
I think we generally do pretty well on the stability front though
compared with a lot of projects.
I'm not particularly bothered about what version it is released in. The
original plan was to get the support in for 1.0, so it depends on
whether people are prepared to allow a slip in naming conventions or
not. An RC2 will supersede the previous one in any case. I'll leave it
up to Ben's pragmatic mind to decide what's best :).
I'm not so sure about a separate module though. All of the new
LDAP-related dependencies are only required to get ApacheDS running for
testing. None of them are needed at runtime, so there's no reason why
they should be required to use Acegi. I'm not familiar enough with Maven
2 to know whether it can discern between runtime and build dependencies,
but presumably it can?
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Then 1.0.0 should have been called M1 or alpha, when you call
something release candidate means that if there no bugs the final jar
will be exactly the same (but the version name in the manifest).
Is not that i don't like the ldap support, but this will be confusing
and a potential problem. It could be released with 1.0.0 as a
different acegi-security-ldap module, or you can do the next day a 1.1
M1 if you want.
In fact I'd like to see it in a different module because it will
facilitate use of transitive dependencies in your build (not only in
maven2, in any system), because ldap support introduces a considerable
amount of dependencies that are not required for the other parts of
the application.
just my 2 cents
On 12/22/05, Luke Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
I think the intention is to have LDAP support in 1.0, and since it is an
extra feature, largely independent of the rest of the codebase it
shouldn't really have any impact on the code in RC1.
Luke.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Hi,
I've notice that this change was included after the RC1. This goes
against the version naming policy, 1.0.0 must be the same as 1.0.0-RC1
except for critical bug fixes.
It'd be better to create a branch for 1.0.0 from the 1.0.0-RC1 tag and
set HEAD to 1.1, where you could keep development.
Regards
--
Luke Taylor. Monkey Machine Ltd.
PGP Key ID: 0x57E9523C http://www.monkeymachine.ltd.uk
--
Luke Taylor. Monkey Machine Ltd.
PGP Key ID: 0x57E9523C http://www.monkeymachine.ltd.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Home: http://acegisecurity.org
Acegisecurity-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acegisecurity-developer
