Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2. I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
servlet-2.4-1.0. - Brett On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to clarify you mean we should have this: > > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId> > <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId> > <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name> > <version>1</version> > > So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer? > > BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified > version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are > mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also > if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time, > we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the > debug symbols to match-up. > > -dain > > On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > > I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the > > omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is > > probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything. > > > > Personally, I'd prefer to have: > > servlet-api-2.4 > > servlet-api-2.4-1 > > servlet-api-2.4-2 > > or similar. > > > > (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same > > source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x > > creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended). > > Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again > > anyway :) > > > > Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might > > be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of > > the spec number. > > > > My 2cents... > > > > - Brett > > > > > > On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like > >> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason, > >> this is what I got: > >> > >> Normally we just have this directory structure: > >> > >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/ > >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/ > >> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/ > >> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag: > >> > >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/ > >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/ > >> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/ > >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/ > >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/ > >> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/ > >> The pom for the specs would be like this: > >> > >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId> > >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId> > >> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name> > >> <version>1.0</version> > >> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and > >> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically: > >> > >> <dependency> > >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId> > >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId> > >> <dependency> > >> > >> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ > >> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to > >> add the version number of the specification to the directory name. > >> > >> What do yo think? > >> > >> -dain > >> > > > >
