Re: plugin repository for 2.1.1

[Donald Woods]

Seems that we need a unique plugin repo for each release, given how we now build plugins based on the content in pom.xml instead of supplying a separate plugin file.... Maybe there are some additional car-maven-plugin enhancements needed, so you can define a range or that any sever release is supported by the plugin/car being built. Or maybe as David Jencks has suggested elsewhere, we need to setup the artifact_aliases.properties in each server release to alias prior releases (like 2.1 and 2.1.1) to the current release (which would be 2.1.2 for the next release.)

-Donald


Joe Bohn wrote:

Joe

I've got some questions (and possibly some issues) with the plugin repository for Geronimo 2.1.1. I went out there attempting to update the plugin catalog after the release of 2.1.1 (as I had done after 2.1 was released). However, I hit some issues and have some questions: 1) I learned too late that the download plugin repository list should have been changed before we cut the release if we wanted the unique catalog for 2.1.1 plugins to be the default (specified in framework/configs/plugin/pom.xml). As it stands now, the default plugin catalog for Geronimo 2.1.1 is pointing to the catalog for Geronimo 2.1. 2) Perhaps sharing the plugin catalog is the correct thing. I'm really not sure if that is best (or even possible). Can we have one catalog support multiple Geronimo releases? ... I would presume we could. Is that what people were assuming or is the assumption a catalog per release? 3) Assuming we should have our own catalog for G 2.1.1 .... I created one and put it under out there under geronimo/site/trunk/docs/plugins/geronimo-2.1.1/. Naturally, you must manually add the catalog for 2.1.1 since the default wasn't updated prior to the release. 4) The catalog from #3 seems to work but I think I need to update some of the plugins (esp. samples) so that they are supported on Geronimo 2.1.1. So it appears that regardless of if we have shared or unique catalogs among releases we will need to update the plugins to support the newer releases if they are shared. Is that correct? (I specifically attempted to install the 2.1-SNAPSHOT jsp sample which failed in 2.1.1 due to missing 2.1 dependencies). I was a bit thrown off by all of this since we didn't have to make the same change for the download list when Geronimo 2.1 was released even though we did update the catalog. This was because the version of the catalog was already specified as 2.1 even while the server itself was still 2.1-SNAPSHOT. I wonder if it is wise to have the catalog listed as if released even when the dependent server (and plugins) are not. BTW, this is also the current case for Geronimo 2.2 and it's catalog. Thoughts?

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature