On 8/20/2010 8:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 20, 2010, at 6:07 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
This version of the file appears to be generated automatically by the build (not sure
what plugin does this). The descriptive name "Annotation 1.1" is taken
directly from the project pom. Note that all of the Geronimo specs have this same
problem, so the correction will need to be applied to all of the projects in trunk. So
before I go changing anything, I'd like to have consensus on what I need to be changing
this to. So,
1) What should be the format of the description in the binary jar file? On the vote thread, Kevan suggested "Apache Geronimo"
or "Apache Geronimo Annotation Spec". Since this is generated from the project pom, I don't think using "Apache
Geronimo" is best option. I suspect we might want to maintain the spec version number in this as well, so "Apache Geronimo
Annotation 1.1 Spec" or "Apache Geronimo Common Annotation 1.1 Spec" would be better. I believe Kevan's biggest objection
was with the missing "Apache Geronimo" designation.
Right the NOTICE should contain the project name (Apache Geronimo). We can add
the subproject info. Personally, I don't think the spec version is necessary,
but don't have a problem with it being there.
Since this value comes from the project descriptive name in the pom,
there's considerable value leaving the spec version number in there.
This values shows up in multiple places, including in the MANIFEST.MF.
Rick
2) Should the source NOTICE file be kept as is or changed to match the generated NOTICE
file? Keeping these the same is definitely a manual process, so there's a good chance
there will be drift over time. I suspect there's also a good chance that new projects
will get created by using an existing project as a model, so it's also likely that
mismatches will get included that way. I think I would lean toward using the common
source NOTICE file with the generic "Apache Geronimo" name.
I would prefer that they were the same. Works for me.
--kevan
