On Dec 11, 2006, at 8:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
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.
Thought I think it is odd, to *move* code from a branch to a tag, and
then back to a branch, this might be a better solution for these
specs that will never change, or change like every 5 years er something.
Or maybe... the problem is really to tool we are using, or the way we
are using that tool. Perhaps if mvn could handle building a release
of a set of modules in one step and each of theses modules had its
own trunk/tags/branches then none of this will matter?
--jason
