We can copy emma.jar and add a version a Scott suggested, and I'll add a version to emma_ant.jar. We're stuck with emma.jar, but that shouldn't be a big problem.
Thanks, John LaBanca [email protected] On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Amit Manjhi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> emma.jar includes our modifications to emma. That is why redist was chosen >> instead of lib. >> The version is included in the name of zip file: emma-2.0.5312-src.zip >> When the zip file is expanded, it just includes 'emma.jar' with no version >> number. So, it made sense to make emma with our patch available under the >> same name. >> > > The problem is, if we someday get a new source version of Emma (whether it > does or doesn't need patches), we can't simply upgrade the existing > emma.jar... that would break old builds. Had we named it > emma-2.0.5312-patched.jar, then we'd just introduce a new sibling with a > higher version. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
