I accept your point that we shouldn't tie Tuscany release numbers
to spec revision numbers. Given that, and the need to have some
number because of maven requirements, your suggestion of
1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
seems to be the best choice for the implementation code.
I think the same reasoning should apply to the org.osoa jars.
We should not tie them to a particular SCA spec revision, such
as 0.92, while the spec is stil evolving. For example, by the
time we release M2, the spec may be at 0.93 or later. Also, not
all parts of the spec are currently at 0.92. Some are at 0.95.
For SDO APIs, the spec level that we are supporting is a mix of
2.01 and 2.1. I'm inclined to think we should just use
1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
for the spec jars as well.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
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]
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
