Hi, I would like to echo Zoe's comments. I know you are hitting problems in trunk, but I think we need to identify the exact list of problems and address them in trunk rather than the defunct 0.3 branch which should really be deleted.
The problem with using a 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT in the 0.3 branch is that the OSGi semantic versions use a major.minor.micro.qualifier model. In this model 0.3.0 is versioned according to numerical progression, and 1-SNAPSHOT is a String.compareTo. The ordering would be fine until we wanted a 0.3.0.10-SNAPSHOT at which point, I think 0.3.0.10-SNAPSHOT would be treated as less than 0.3.0.2-SNAPSHOT which is not what we want. As Zoe said we had a long discussion and a vote regarding this issue. The discussions are archived and below are some links that hook into the archive of the discussions and the final vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201101.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e This is the discuss thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e and a summary: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201102.mbox/%[email protected]%3e http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201103.mbox/%[email protected]%3e This is the vote thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201103.mbox/%[email protected]%3e This is the vote result thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/aries-dev/201103.mbox/%[email protected]%3e Alasdair On 2 June 2011 10:12, zoe slattery <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/06/2011 03:16, David Jencks wrote: >> >> On May 30, 2011, at 10:21 AM, zoe slattery wrote: >> >>>>> This branch development version is incorrect because of the switch of >>>>> release scheme. In switching release scheme one assumption was that >>>>> nothing >>>>> would ever be released from the 0.3 branch again so maybe it ought to be >>>>> deleted? Any future releases will always be from trunk. >>>> >>>> That may not be a safe assumption. Geronimo would like to get a release >>>> out pretty soon and there is little evidence at the moment that trunk will >>>> be stable enough to be usable. On the other hand 0.3 also has its share of >>>> blocking bugs. >>> >>> Releasing from the 0.3 branch has some implications for Aries release >>> management - I suspect that it has the potential to create a lot of work so >>> I would encourage you to use what is in trunk if you possibly can. >> >> I'd like to figure out an appropriate version number for the 0.3 branch >> and change to it. It would be great to get trunk released but every time I >> turn around I find another problem apparently with the weaving/proxying code >> and I'm not confident we can find and fix all the problems quickly enough. >> >> Locally I made a 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT application branch that appeared to work >> fine with geronimo. What do you expect to be a problem with changing the >> versions in 0.3-RCx to 0.3.0.1-SNAPSHOT? > > I think there are several issues here. The thing that concerns me most is > that some months ago we had a lengthy discussion on this list about whether > we should move to a release by bundle process and implement OSGi semantic > versioning correctly. This discussion ended in a vote and we agreed to move > forward and modify our development and release process to implement OSGi > semantic versioning. If you want a release from the 0.3 branch you are > overturning something that we voted on agreed. > > As far as development versions go I don't think what you call the versions > in the 0.3 branch matters a lot. So, as long as you never release from it I > don't really see an issue (although I may well have missed something). If > you ever want a release from that branch someone will need to work through > and figure out how to align what you want with the OSGi semantic versioning > scheme that we set up. I don't think this is a trivial task, so that, and > the belief that there are significant enhancements in trunk that would > benefit Geronimo, is why I am strongly encouraging you to use trunk. > > Zoe >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >>> Zoe >> > > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
