Daniel Kulp wrote: > Simon, > > Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number > at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins. > > I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now. The maven > version numbers should ALWAYS be: > #.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT] > or > #.#[.#]-# (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something. > > After thinking about it, I might suggest: > 0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT > where we use the SCA version number. That would kind of keep us from going > to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing > or not. >
Sounds like the maven requirements set the format and we just need to pick the version number and whether it's all #.# or if we have Mx text in it as well. I think there is a good chance that we will deliver multiple releases at the same version level of the spec (especially when the spec matures and updates more slowly). As a result, I don't think that we should pin the version of our release to the spec number. Most projects have a [major].[minor].[bugfix] type version number with rules for bumping major and minor numbers based on compatibility between releases. We should do something similar. There is also the "don't use 1.X or x.0 of any software" rule, so perhaps we should get beyond 1.0 as soon as possible. I remember people not wanting to use OpenEJB just because it had a 0.9 version number - they kept waiting for 1.0 to come out. In light of all that, I think we should go with the basic 1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the Tuscany implementations. Having said that I do think tracking the spec version would be useful in the org.osoa jars (sdo and sca APIs). I would suggest for them we go with 0.92-incubating-SNAPSHOT based on the revision number of the spec document. -- Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
