As a side note, I never ever had "marketing" dictate bundle versions (just like they don't care about package versions). In my opinion both should be done semantically. The product as a whole can have a marketing version though, and we agree that can be anything they like! ;)
On Aug 1, 2013, at 14:52 PM, Peter Kriens <[email protected]> wrote: > Just adding a packageinfo (or package-info.java) would help and would not > cost anything. For the Consumer/Provider types ... well, I do not see an easy > solution but would be curious to hear your experiences when you try Andrei > Pozolotin <[email protected]>'s application at > https://github.com/barchart/barchart-version-tester. > > I know people think it is confusing to start at 1.0.0 but notice that > starting at your current version is MUCH more confusing the day after > tomorrow. I.e. you make all packages 6.2.0 and now tomorrow half is at 7.0.0, > and a quarter is at 6.3.0 while your product is still 6.2.1. Packages will > evolve very differently over time. One way to make it clean a package version > is -completely- unrelated to a bundle version is to start at a very high > number, e.g. 100.0.0. For OSGi, there is no compatibility between major > versions so it is ok to start anywhere. > > There is also another reason not to confuse a product version with package > versions. The marketing girls want to own that number and get very freakish > when you try to deny them their whims. The usually don't care about package > versions ... > > So I do understand your point but understand what future pain you will be > causing. > > Good luck and keep us posted about your experiences. Kind regards, > > Peter Kriens > > > > On 31 jul. 2013, at 21:02, Raymond Auge wrote: > >> Thanks all, >> >> I guess what I was really after was a tool which would actually create all >> the packageinfo files for me so I wouldn't have to add them to the hundreds >> and hundreds of unversioned packages. >> >> I can script it. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Ferry Huberts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 31/07/13 19:23, Raymond Auge wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Ferry Huberts <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> For (semantic) versioning in OSGi the bundle version actually is >>> meaningless. It's a marketing number, so 6.2.0 in your case. >>> >>> Only package versions have meaning. >>> >>> Of course you can always version everything the same, but a single major >>> change will bump _everything_ to 7.0.0. I hope you're aware of that... >>> >>> >>> Yeah, I surely understand that... but I want to start from something >>> that makes sense! Starting at 1.0 will confuse everyone who has been >>> consuming our produce for years. >>> >>> I'm also not suggesting that we would just update all the package >>> versions to the same value... that would be pointless. >>> >>> I'm certainly taking about "baselining" the initial versions, just not >>> with 1.0. >> >> Then just start with the versions from where you are now ;-) >> No problem for the (our) tooling >> >> PS. it's a work in progress, if you find issues, please report them >> (although it should work quite well already) >> >>> >>> -- >>> *Raymond Augé* >>> <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> (@rotty3000) >>> Senior Software Architect >>> *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> (@Liferay) >>> >> >> -- >> Ferry Huberts >> >> >> >> -- >> Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) >> Senior Software Architect >> Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSGi Developer Mail List >> [email protected] >> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
