On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:10:55PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > >On Apr 4, 2005, at 9:59 AM, David Blevins wrote: > > > >>Seems like we are going in circles on this one. Can we reasonable > >>agree that it isn't practical to hold up a Geronimo release till > >>every project we have a snapshot depenency on is able to hand us some > >>sort of official release of their own? > > > >+1 > > > >We do our best to eliminate the SNAPSHOTs, but the reality is we can't > >always eliminate all of them. > > You guys are crazy. We have to be able to eliminate them, especially > for production releases. Even before we're 1.0, I would expect that our > 0.8 and 0.9 stuff are becoming good enough for some dependable use, and > thus we should only depend on released software. >
You do realize we are talking about two different things here. No one in their right mind would propose SNAPSHOT dependencies are a good idea for releases of any kind. Not only do I strongly agree, I think we shouldn't switch something back to SNAPSHOT after a release. Even further, I don't think pressuring projects into giving us an officially named version of our SNAPSHOT when they aren't ready to release is a solution either. Then we are just turning a blind eye and saying, "not my problem." Our current reality is that we do have over a dozen SNAPSHOT dependencies and we will need to release soon enough. I only see two solutions to this releasing issue: 1. Use date stamped (cvs) or revision stamped (svn) jars in place of SNAPSHOTs on releases. 2. Not release until we can truly eliminate all SNAPSHOT usage--not just get other projects to relabel our SNAPSHOTs so we feel warm and fuzzy. My long term preference is 2, though I'm ok with 1 in the very short term. -David
