Wouldn't that imply that each bundle has its own lifecycle ? I think a while ago we agreed on having one release per "component", i.e. blueprint (which includes api + core + cm + ...). I'm not sure how well this would go if we have blueprint-core 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT depending on blueprint-api-0.3.0. >From a users point of view, it certainly does not help because all the maven transitive dependencies are kinda screwed.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:11, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 13:59 +0000 schrieb Jeremy Hughes: >> >> (c) Where an Aries module depends on other Aries modules, it will depend >> >> on the released versions of the other modules _until_ it requires a >> >> change in the module that it depends on, at which stage it will switch >> >> to a dependency on the development version. >> >> So for example, Blueprint 0.4-SNAPSHOT will depend on quiesce 0.3, proxy >> >> 0.3, testsupport 0.3 and parent 0.3. If blueprint 0.4-SNAPSHOT needs to >> >> pick up a change in proxy the blueprint top level pom will need to be >> >> modified to point to proxy 0.4-SNAPSHOT. >> > >> > I would assume this means "depends on modified API" and does not mean >> > "depends on some bug fixed in the implementation", right ? >> >> If you're referring to the semantic meaning attached to moving from >> 0.3 to 0.4 then I think that would be taking this discussion in a >> different direction. But that is a good point. Before getting into a >> semantic versioning discussion, I think the intent of this was to so >> if there are broken tests in 0.4-SNAPSHOT of a module which are fixed >> by pulling in 0.4-SNAPSHOT of its dependency then its dependency >> should be updated. > > No, this is not about semantic versioning (yet). > > This is about the following: Consider bundle X depends on the API > org.apache.aries.y.api of bundle Y. Now some implementation of this API > in package org.apache.aries.y.impl of bundle Y has a bug which must be > fixed. In this case the dependency of bundle X on Y should not be > changed. > > Regards > Felix > > >> >> > >> > Regards >> > Felix >> > >> >> >> >> This will lead us towards being able to release by module but it implies >> >> a change in development practice. I will make the pom changes locally >> >> and test them but I'd like to check that release-by-module is still the >> >> goal and that you all think this is a reasonable way to be able to >> >> achieve it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Zoë >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
