Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Do you mind if I add some version info? I have added version info to the
> jakarta-turbine-3 descriptor and everything appears fine. Geir said he would
> help in making JJAR use the Gump descriptors so I'm going to make him keep
> his promise! (Well it wasn't actually a promise but ... :-))
If I haven't been clear in the past - do anything that doesn't break me.
And if you do occasionally break me, we'll work through that too.
On this project, your vote is equal to mine.
Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> Are we making sure that the version info contains all types of
> information, ie not just the version of dependency x, but also the fact
> that for version 1.0 the dependency on x didn't even exist?
There are multiple ways to model this. One is to recognize that Turbine-2
and Turbine-3 (for example) essentially are completely separate projects.
One thing I would like to explore one of these days is the notion that
Xerces and Crimson are separate projects which implement a common API. To
my mind, the dependency is on the API, and there may be multiple code bases
which implement the API. A dependency engine should be able to recognize
this.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Again I see it as project information as a whole, if you have a better
> layout for dependencies I think it should be added the descriptors in the
> gump repository. I don't see them as gump descriptors. I see them as project
> descriptors that gump utilizes. I think that many, many tools can use these
> descriptors JJAR among them.
Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> Whether the info comes from one repo or another doesn't really matter to
> me, although I would like to see some common DTD for the base
> information.
+1. I don't care if all of the code in Gump is thrown away and replaced with
+something better. It is the data that I care most about.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I am fully aware of the need for version info because I plan to use Gump to
>> build distributions of the TDK in a reliable way that will let any Turbine
>> developer who wants to participate managing releases do so in a consistent
>> fashion. We obviously must use stated versions of tools. This would allow a
>> rigourous build of a distribution that would be consistent across machines.
>
> Is this consistant with Gumps 'mission' or is this something new?
Building a collection of projects in a consistent manner is certainly in
Gump's "mission".
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
