On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On 12/11/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> I'm in favor of a single version for all specs. Versioning the
specs
> individually has some advantages but makes the release manager's
job
> more difficult since the tooling doesn't readily support that
> approach.
Um.. that's not true. Maven has full support for this. Also it
doesn't make the release manager's job harder.
Maybe I read too much into the wiki page that Kevan referenced, which
lists the following advantage for using a single version for specs:
- Release process is simple and can be fully automated with the
release plugin
And the following listed as a disadvantage of versioning the specs
individually:
- Releases are more difficult because the person performing the
release must be aware of any dependencies and must also rerelease
those jars. (eliminated with working version-ranges)
That's actually not true as you can mark all the deps of a spec as
'<scope>provided' which shuts off maven's transitivity. Then all
this pom interlinking between specs which makes everyone's brain hurt
just goes away.
-David
and lists as a supporting fact:
- Version ranges don't work several (most?) important maven plugins
Is the wiki page outdated or am I missing the point?
> And as a developer (at least for me) a single version is
> more intuitive, evidenced by my recent snafu where I created the
> initial version of jsp 2.1 spec at 1.1-SNAPSHOT. Thankfully Jason
> keeps a very close eye on things and suggested using 1.0-SNAPSHOT
> instead.
Um I think that goes both ways. Because all specs are currently at
1.1-SNAPSHOT, you mistakenly created a new spec at 1.1-SNAPSHOT. As
specs become more independent, I would expect you would naturally
choose 1.0-SNAPSHOT for a new spec. In addition, new specs do not
come along that often so making a mistake once a year is not a big
deal.
I agree that could go either way. Besides, what seems intuitive for
me usually ends up getting me into trouble so I shouldn't have even
brought it up. :-)
> I also believe having the specs all at a single release is
consistent
> with the approach we use in server/trunk, where the artifacts share
> the same geronimo version and when necessary a version number
can be
> included in the artifactId. Consistency has its benefits.
In that case, why not move specs into the server tree?
So a single version of specs can support more than one version of the
server. Would that not be the case with the 1.2 and 2.0-M1 versions
of the server?
-dain
