On 6/7/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron,
Joe put out a thread about the interpretation of versions which I think is
exactly this problem. If
we have a well understood algorithm for Versions that includes several aspects
of the final qualifer
(if present) this would solve the issue. So releases is just one of many
possible uses. Others
include patched versions, SNAPSHOTS, etc.
Does this sound right to you?
Well, only a little. I would rather agree to use well-defined
releases beta1-netaN followed by rc1-rcN followed by a final release.
I don't want to say a plugin will support arbitrary releases
designated by whatever token someone feels like using so long as it's
valid according to our version calculation rules -- that seems likely
to be problematic. But in the plugin context, I'm only talking about
the "Geronimo version", not the version of individual components like
geronimo/jetty/1.1.3-patch5/car. I agree that Joe's discussion needs
to happen in relation to dependencies and versions of specific
components *within* Geronimo.
I guess I better propose my release versioning issue in a separate
thread for 1.1.N/1.2.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> OK, so we have a small issue with the plugins.
>
> They currently list the supported versions of Geronimo in their
> metadata. The idea is that we don't state that a plugin will run in
> *any* version of Geronimo, we instead add each supported version as it
> is released. Currently that list only contains 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>
> Now I can go add 1.1-20060607 to the list of supported versions for
> the 1.1 plugins, but we'll never be able to do that in advance. It
> would be nicer if the release candidates had more predictable names
> (rc1, rc2, rc3, etc.) so we could add them to the supported version
> list ahead of time.
>
> We also have to decide how to handle SNAPSHOT versions of Geronimo. I
> don't really think we want the released 1.1 plugins to claim that they
> support 1.2-SNAPSHOT, which may or may not be true depending on the
> extent of the changes. I'm currently planning to have a different
> plugin repository for each major version of Geronimo, so the 1.1
> plugin repository will be fairly stable and the 1.2 plugin repository
> may need to be rebuilt a lot and won't likely have a very complete set
> of plugins until the release.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 6/7/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Geronimo Users and Developers,
>>
>> We've been busy little beavers this evening and would like to share
>> the fruits of our labor.
>>
>> First, may we present the candidate build of Geronimo in Octographic
>> quality. We have big builds,
>> little builds, some for Windows and others for Unix and of course the
>> ever enjoyable Tomcat and
>> Jetty versions. Please take some time to take these builds and verify
>> that they meet your exacting
>> standards for a Geronimo Release. As we like to say, "Big G, Little G
>> and things that rhyme with G."
>>
>> *Jetty*
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-20060607.tar.gz
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-20060607.zip
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-20060607.tar.gz
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-20060607.zip
>>
>>
>> *Tomcat*
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-20060607.tar.gz
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-20060607.zip
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-20060607.tar.gz
>>
>>
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-20060607.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> Remaining items.
>>
>> 1. We need the ActiveMQ 3.2.4 to be released.
>> 2. Finalize release notes (Hernan...can you pick this one up? A set
>> for today would be good)
>> 3. Move the remainging JIRAs out of 1.1. (Aaron, Dain, anyone ?)
>> 4. Fix OpenEJB Source. I versioned and released it but I haven't
>> fixed the SVN repo yet. I'll do
>> this in the morning unless someone beats me to it.
>> 5. A vote. I'm note sure if this can qualify for a vote since there
>> is a SNAPSHOT in the release.
>> It won't change but need to note that. Thoughts?
>>
>> To complete an official release I need to finalize the project version
>> and rebuild once again.
>>
>> Its late and I'm probably missing something so if there are barriers
>> to completing the final release
>> please let me know ASAP.
>>
>> I expect we'll start a 1.1.1 straightaway but let's get this 1.1 out
>> and going.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for taking time to review this release of AG 1.1.
>>
>> The Geronimo Development Team
>>
>
>
>
