On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 13:14, James Strachan wrote: > > > I am currently cleaning up all the JAR names in the repository: giving > > > them versioned names and giving the -dev JARs the versioning we agreed > > > upon: id-yy-mm-dd-build#.jar. This makes things sortable. > > > > -1 on this naming convention. Rather than build number I would prefer to > > see a higher precision timestamp (something to the second) of when the > > checkout was done, so that one could recreate the jar from CVS.
The reason is (as others have already stated) a build number is not enough to recreate the jar from CVS, a higher precision timestamp allows that. > I'd still like to keep some kind of naming convention to mean, use the > latest CVS head build of a certain package. e.g. maybe we could fetch them > from Gump or something. > > So I'd like to keep some form of "-dev.jar", what its called I'm less > concerned. foo-CVS-head.jar? I think it is fine for projects to depend on the latest version from cvs (-dev) HOWEVER a given jar can never guarantee that it is the latest version from cvs, only that it was when it was built. Including the timestamp with a jar gives you a path to determine what source was used to build it, and provides a way to determine that it really is the latest (by diffing between it's timestamp and the current HEAD). If a project depends on the latest then update-jars could potentially download the snapshot with the most recent date from the repository (or ask GUMP for it). > > James -- jt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
