Cool, thanks for the update. >> I don't like the idea of having the manually increment a value in >> PCEnhancer anytime the file is changed because I think it'll fall to the >> wayside pretty quickly.
Hm. Many changes to PCEnhancer are compatible with previous versions, but I guess that's a fair approximation for a compatibility warning. -Patrick On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Rick Curtis wrote: > Patrick - > > It looks like svnversion doesn't work quite as I expected when I made this > change before.... anyway, as of 984522 this should now be working as I > intended. > > Thanks, > Rick > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Rick Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yep, sounds like I didn't narrow the scope of this message enough. >> >> I don't like the idea of having the manually increment a value in >> PCEnhancer anytime the file is changed because I think it'll fall to the >> wayside pretty quickly. I wonder if I could change the revision from the >> openjpa-parent revision to the revision of the PCEnhancer file.? This way >> we'll only log a message if the PCEnhancer is really updated. This still may >> log a few false positive messages, but it will be closer to the intent of my >> original change. >> >> If that sounds reasonable I'll give it a shot in the am to see if that'll >> squash some of those messages. >> >> Thanks, >> Rick >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Linskey <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm getting warnings most of the time that I run my build complaining >>> about down-level entities. Are we maybe logging this too eagerly? >>> >>> Right now, it looks like every time that a new OpenJPA build is created, >>> we record different enhancement values in the entities. Since I'm using >>> 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT, that means that if I don't do a clean build every day, I see >>> messages about down-level entities. I think that this level of logging is >>> useful, but changes to the enhancement contract are very rare indeed. It >>> seems like we should just increment something deliberately when such a >>> contractual change happens, rather than using the svn revision information >>> as a proxy for it. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Patrick >>> >>> -- >>> Patrick Linskey >>> 202 669 5907 >>> >>> >> -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
