I agree in principal, but having a whole different set of versionings seems kinda... messy? If m-collections goes 1.0, and then 1.1, and then m-math goes 1.0, and core goes to 0.5, we have a whole pile of different version numbers to keep track of.
Didn't Lucene and Solr just intentionally do the reverse, locking their release numbers and schedules? And now we're doing the opposite on a less mature project? What exactly do we gain by this? -jake On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > For what it is worth, I actually prefer this approach to the multi-pom > approach in many cases. If it really is a separate thing, it might as well > have a separate release schedule and artifact. If it isn't a separate > thing, then you might as well use a single pom. This heuristic doesn't > always work, and I know that people with more maven experience than I have > work under different principles. My explanation for the difference in > opinion is that the separated project may be better for those with limited > maven experience while the more complex arrangement may be better for those > with a native fluency. > > As such, giving mahout-collections and ultimately mahout-math their own > version number is a fine thing. Also will pretty much always exhibit more > maturity than the core mahout project if only because the needs they > fulfill > are better understood. That makes the 1.0 version for collections match > the > 0.4 upcoming version for Mahout. > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Substance: > > > > 1: remove collections-codegen and collections from the top-level pom's > > module list. > > 2: change their parents to point to the apache parent. > > 3: tweak their poms so that the release plugin works right with them. > > 4: release them > > 5: change rest of mahout to consume release. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This still lives in Mahout, just has a different version number? > > > what's the substance of the change in the short-term; I think I missed > > > that step. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Benson Margulies < > bimargul...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> Hearing no other remarks, I will proceed to disconnect and make the > > >> version 1.0-SNAPSHOT, and call a release vote RSN. > > > > > >
