On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and
make these changes?
My reading of Matt's note (which I agree with) is that you should
wait until 1.1.1 has been shipped (unless 1.1.1 runs into an extended
delay in releasing due to administrative matters).
I think this change should follow the RTC process. This is not a bug
fix, not a doc change, etc. It's updating svn and changing the way we
deliver specs -- my read is that it falls under RTC.
You don't mention geronimo-j2ee_1.4_spec (the uber-jar). It's
currently versioned using the top-level pom version. I assume you
plan on adding a geronimoSpecsJ2eeVersion?
Your process for updating the jms spec would be:
cd specs/geronimo-spec-jms
mvn release
cd ../geronimo-spec-j2ee
mvn release
I'm not so sure that this is any better than we have now... I see two
options:
1) drop the uber-jar
2) release all specs simultaneosly (even if they haven't changed) and
all have the same version...
--kevan
--jason
On Aug 12, 2006, at 12:16 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason,
I'm +1 on the change. In order to release 1.1.1 we need to
release an updated version of the J2EE_JAAC specs. I am waiting
for feedback from Geir on some licensing issues as well as a TCK
run that Kevan is doing. That said I'd prefer to wait until the
we cut the 1.1.1 release. If it looks like its going to be
delayed due to the licensing concerns then we should do this
straight away next week.
Since this isn't a code change I agree with Jason's comments on no
review required. Lazy consensus is appropriate here.
Jason Dillon wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs,
and Alan started a reorg branch which gives each spec module its
own trunk+branches+tags...
I have been thinking about this for a while, and with the recent
desire to split off more modules from geronimo/trunk I've been
pondering it even more. What I have come to believe is that
spitting up spec modules into their own trunk+branches+tags is
probably not the best direction for us to head in.
I believe that all of our specs can, and should, share one
trunk... and still have each module specify its own version.
This is very similar to how Maven2 plugins is setup, see here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins
Each plugin has its own version that changes independently. The
top-level pom has a version too, which is independent and is only
changed when there is a major configuration change in that pom.
I recommend that we follow this model for our specs.
The advantage to one trunk, is that it facilitates easy check out
and building when you just want all of the specs. If each spec
was in its own trunk, you would need to svn co each one, then mvn
install in each tree, which is a pain.
We also almost never branch specs, they just keep chugging along,
only really needing tags to track released versions.
So, here is what I propose:
specs/trunk/pom.xml
specs/trunk/<artifactId>
specs/tags/<artifactId>/<version>
And if needed:
specs/branches/<artifactId>/<name>
This is a single trunk so to build all specs:
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/
specs
cd specs
mvn install
To release an individual spec, say geronimo-spec-jms:
cd specs/geronimo-spec-jms
mvn release
The m2 release plugin can be configured with a _tag base_, which
we can set to:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/$
{pom.artifactId}
When released, the plugin will svn cp just the module's directory
into a directory under tags, so it will be easy to see what the
released versions of a specific spec are.
* * *
I really do not see the need for each spec to have its own trunk,
and really I think that if we did then it would just make it more
difficult for cases when we really want all specs.
I do not see any downside to the approach above.
I recommend that we implement this. The only major change, which
isn't that major, is that the properties which live in the root
pom that control the versions need to be removed... or rather
moved back to the <version> element of the respective pom.
Comments?
--jason
