Hi, Am Samstag, den 05.02.2011, 14:28 +0000 schrieb zoe slattery: > On 05/02/2011 12:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I think we may want to stick too much to semantic versioning. > Is there a 'not' missing? > > Don't > > get me wrong, I agree with the compatibility rules semantic and we > > should support them: i.e. if there is an incompatible change, the > > major version has to be different and if there is a compatible change, > > the minor version has to be different. > > However, I think it does not imply we need to be strict about *when* > > we change the version of the package. If we align the package version > > changes with the bundle version changes (that does not necessarily > > imply they have to be the same), i.e. when we change from aries 0.3 to > > aries 0.4, the packages are bumped too from a minor version, this > > leaves some place to do branch fixes using minor versions on the > > package.
That's what I tried to say earlier: increasing the version number without changing anything is confusing. Thus I would not do it. > > > > I think we face two different development model basically: > > > > * use a more traditional development model using a tree of versions > > (either at the component level or for the whole tree). We can support > > branch fixes and micro releases in a tree. We need to somewhat align > > the package version changes to the bundle version change. This means > > we may end up with multiple identical packages with the same version > > number (though I suppose real api and library packages are somewhat > > different, as pure API packages that do not contain any code could > > have their own versioning not tied to this). We can release / branch > > per component or from the root (still to be decided, but completely > > orthogonal to the problem) > I think we need to be able to articulate some clear 'rules' on versions. > > * use the model that felix / sling follows and have a versioning > > scheme per bundle with no way to maintain bug fix branches. Each > > bundle has to be released independantly with its own release notes and > > all. I think we'd have to flatten our svn tree as there's no real > > need to have a tree of modules (we can use maven profiles if we want > > to build only a given component). The consequence is that we also > > need to maintain documentation about compatiblity, as users see the > > bundle versions, not really the package versions and we need to have a > > way to tell them which bundles are supposed to work together (i think > > we have more than 100 bundles in the whole tree I think, so not sure > > what kind of documentation could give an overview of that ;-) ). > So, just to consider blueprint, which currently has 12 bundles, we would > - release each bundle separately, with its own vote. Its own JIRA > component, its own release notes, its own release announce etc. No, no, no, yes, no. In Sling we sometimes release multiple bundles at once. Such votes will also be announced together. Yes, each bundle has its own change log because each bundle release has its own Version identifier in JIRA. But we collect similar bundles into bigger compoinents. For example all scripting related bundles (api, core, scripting language support) are under the same "Scripting" component. > - say we have blueprint-something at version x.y.z-SNAPSHOT, and we > want to release version x.y.z. In trunk there is also > blueprint-anotherthing at version a.b.c-SNAPSHOT. If we release > blueprint-something x.y.z, what do we say about what it has been > built/tested with? Or maybe we have to release blueprint-anotherthing > a.b.c at the same time? I would say, that there is no hard rule. Regards Felix > > > > It seems any in-between solution has some big problems. Currently, > > we're more on the first solution and I think it's way easier for us > > and for our users. > It's easier for us. But what we do at the moment is definitely wrong wrt > to package versions. Is the implication of what you say above that you > believe we should not use semantic versioning (strictly) for packages? > Or do you think we can achieve this with some modifications to the > current process? That's what I was trying to explore. Independent bundle > releases does not seem practical (for us) unless we opted to combine > everything in a single uber bundle (and I think there were arguments > against that). > > Zoe > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:03, Felix Meschberger<[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > >
