Hi,
Am Samstag, den 05.02.2011, 00:43 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> > In fact I want it to be easy, the easier the better. If you change the code
> > the version should increment.
>
> So why even bother with having to manually change the version ? I
> think it should be possible to have the maven-bundle-plugin increment
> the version depending on the kind of changes by comparing the package
> signatures and make sure it follows the semantic versioning. Given it
> has already been done (see
> https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/obcc/OSGi_Version_Generator) I
> think we could add that to the maven bundle plugin.
+1 !
(Not sure, whether the Bundle Plugin does not get overloaded, though)
>
>
> However, there's something which is worrying me about the semantic
> versioning. I don't think it can cope with maintenance branches. The
> process of incrementing a package version works well in a single line
> of releases, but not in a tree, so can't ever release a package which
> doesn't contain all the previous changes. Or rather the process works
> for a given package, but the problem is that our bundles do not only
> contain a single package. Let's take a concrete example.
> I have a bundle version 3.0 which has two packages foo / 1.0 + bar / 1.0.
> In a future release 3.1 of that bundle, i add one functionality to the
> foo package and a minor modification to the bar package, so I release
> this with foo / 1.1 + bar / 1.0.1.
> Some time later, I find a bug in the bar package which I'd like to fix
> for both minor versions of my bundle. If I do so, I'd end up with a
> bundle 3.0.1 with foo / 1.0 + bar / 1.0.1 and a bundle 3.1.1 with foo
> / 1.1 + bar / 1.0.2. That's not really possible because the two bar /
> 1.0.1 package would be different.
> Possible solutions:
> * backport into 3.0 branch the change that modification that caused
> the bump from 1.0 to 1.0.1 (when releasing 3.1). However, this may
> not be a big fix, maybe a small improvement that I don't want to
> backport, so I don't think this solution is a good idea
> * never release a bundle which exports multiple packages: that sucks too
> * don't do maintenance release: i don't think we want that
> * consider that any modification you may not want to backport in a
> maintenance branch later should lead to bump the minor version of a
> package, even if the signature of the package doesn't really change
> I think the last one is the only one applicable. Thoughts ?
Well branches pose just more than this single problem, which is why I
generally try to avoid release branches like the plague ...
In this concrete example, you might probably have to either backport
everything from the bar/1.0.1 package or employ qualifier increments.
At the end of the day, this should not prevent the project from adopting
semantic versioning, because the benefits tremendously outweigh these
minor costs.
Regards
Felix
>
>
> >> On the other hand, the problem is always the same: you have to update
> >> information in a secondary location -- regardless of whether this is the
> >> packaginfo or the pom.xml file.
> >>
> >
> > Right, and packageinfo is right next to the classes you just updated,
> > closer = better IMHO.
> >
> >> The advantage of doing it in the pom.xml file IMHO is that you have a
> >> complete overview of your exports incl. their versions. YMMV.
> >>
> >
> > The downside in our case is you have to update the bundle and the uber
> > bundle, bigger chance of getting out of sync, which would be very very bad.
> >
> >>> also you need to sync the version correctly
> >>> between the bundles
> >>
> >> the bundle plugin takes care of this (fortunately) -- assuming you mean
> >> the "Import-Package" versioning.
> >>
> >
> > I'm trying to address export bundle. I'm happy with the import package
> > stuff.
> >
> >>> and the uber bundles.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> bnd supports the packageinfo files (and also annotations in
> >>> package-info.java), but those are not currently picked up and used in
> >>> our build. I raise FELIX-2819 and a workaround has been suggested,
> >>> which I managed to get working.
> >>>
> >>> The fix would be to add the following to the default-pom and get the
> >>> modules to use the updated parent:
> >>>
> >>> <resource>
> >>> <directory>${project.build.sourceDirectory}</directory>
> >>> <includes>
> >>> <include>**/packageinfo</include>
> >>> </includes>
> >>> </resource>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you will still have the regular resources in the
> >> src/main/resources tree. So you have to explicitly list this to in the
> >> <resources> element of the parent POM to not miss these...
> >
> > Right, this is already in our parent pom, so I'm proposing adding this in
> > addition to the other resources statements already there.
> >
> >>
> >> In Sling we currently maintain the exported package version in the POMs.
> >> This works fine but is also kind of suboptimal.
> >>
> >> I think the most important thing is to make it consistent: Do it either
> >> way, but stick to.
> >
> > I agree. I think we should use packageinfo though :)
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Felix
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>> Alasdair
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
