On 01/02/2011 14:54, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
This is very different from what we have I think, as gogo's root pom
isn't used at all.
Releasing gogo involves releasing each of the maven subproject
independantly afaik.
That might be true - I'm struggling with the logic at the moment.
Wondering why the development version of the gogo
runtime is 0.9.0-SNAPSHOT and the latest release seems to be 0.4.0 If
there were released independently wouldn't the next
development version be either 0.5.0-SNAPSHOT or 0.4.1-SNAPSHOT depending
on the nature of the change? Oh well - probably not
something to worry about.
The main difference is that all felix releases consists of a *single*
bundle.
Yes - that was my conclusion too.
If we go this way, that would mean that releasing blueprint
only would require 13 releases. Some of those just contain tests, so
that does not make sense to me.
Completely agree.
From an usability point of view, I
would definitely not go that way. I'd personaly rather go in the
opposite direction and use a single reactor / release for all
components.
Well - that is where we are at the moment - so it's the least effort :-)
I think it would be good to be able to release modules independently but
a combination
of having sub-modules and wanting not to break semantic versioning is
making this difficult. Although - in effect - I suppose we
do not follow semantic versioning already.
Another consideration is that I think we should tie the release cycle
with the svn layout, i.e. if we want to keep each component with a
separate lifecycle, we should have multiple trunks. That's way
cleaner imho (and much more git friendly btw).
Do you mean that there would be a trunk for each module?
I'm not sure that I can see what multiple trunks would be like, does
anyone else do this? Could you explain a bit more?
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 15:25, zoe slattery<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Felix
I had a look at felix to see if I could work out how you do the independent
releases. I didn't look through absolutely everything but
I only found two modules that had sub-modules (gogo and http). Of those two
it looks as though the pom structure in gogo might be similar
to what we need in Aries. Is this a model you would recommend? Or is there
something closer?
Zoe
Hi,
Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 15:22 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
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.
I bet you won't release blueprint-api as version 0.4.0 if it is the same
as 0.3.0, right ?
Regards
Felix
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
