On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Ok, I still don't have the brain power but this is in the back of
my mind.
Here is my take (yes, I'm rehashing stuff).
Currently what we have we don't want so we can eliminate the option
where we release everything under an uber version number that has
no bearing on the actual artifacts being released. So, for
instance, when we released a modified version of JAAC its version
number was 1.1.1 and all the other modules in the branches/1.1 were
at 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.1 which is horribly confusing.
We're left with other alternatives of which two seem to be the
current topic of discussion.
Option 1:
Version all modules independently with no association to each other
except through perhaps dependencies.
- Makes releasing hard as coordinating multiple modules is the
responsibility of the consumer
- Makes releasing easy as there is almost no interdependence so
work on different modules can proceed at their own pace.
Option 2:
Version all modules together under a single version number. This
means if we changed JAAC in the above example all other modules
would also be released as -1.1.1 even though they didn't changed.
- This makes releasing easy as all modules get pushed out a once.
- This makes releasing hard as one module that is having trouble or
people don't have time to work on it holds up the whole train.
The factor that I think impacts the above options the most is the
amount of churn in the specs. A lot of churn makes interdependence
a PITA and makes option 1 favorable and a little churn makes option
2 more favorable.
Since specs are versioned / maintained infrequently, we hate the
existing system and we need to get past the debate and get
something done *I suggest that we adopt option 2*, give it a go,
and if it sucks wind then we move to version 3.0 and switch to
option 1.
Just to quietly raise my hand, we used to do option 2 on 1.0-M1
through 1.0-M5 and I was release manager nearly all of those. I
advocated using one version for all specs. I eventually grew to
dislike that (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-
dev&m=113857091823325&w=2).
I understand institutional memory is short if people really want to
do the one version thing again, that's cool. I just want to go on
record as saying I think the way we've attempted the one version for
each approach also turned out to be flawed. We should have marked
all the dependencies of each spec with '<scope>provided' shutting off
maven's transitivity which would fix every issue I'm aware of with
managing relationships between specs.
Thanks,
David
Either way people will be unhappy but getting past this roadblock
is important.
Is anyone -1 on this approach?
On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Dec 11, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm not sure that we will ever agree with each other. I'm not
even trying to convince you or anyone else... cause at this point
I simply don't care.
Before we continue this discussion, how about we first determine
if anyone cares?
If you care about how the specs use one version for all specs or
one version for each spec, please respond to this email.
-dain
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
