I understand your concern.
However, the application itself is self contained and is not meant to be a 
third party application/library. Each release is tagged in Subversion, proper 
release notes are maintained, and the application will contain a web page 
specifying the current build/version.

Right now, changing multiple pom files each time before a release is a headache 
(and then changing it back to snapshot).

Regardless of how one sets an identifier of some sort for a release number, it 
is going to be manual (unless one goes only by build number).

I have done my share of deployments and tracking versions and find this way to 
be the best. I also believe in checking final binary into a versioning control 
system as the ONLY %100 sure way of knowing whether a build can be reproduced 
is by checking the final product of the build (one of the reasons I want to 
strip Maven files from artifacts).

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:25
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: General Maven questions....

Taub, Jonathan wrote:

> Recently, I decided to introduce some changes into the build process and I 
> was unable to figure out the following:
> * I want to have the final artifact name (.jar, .war, etc) WITHOUT the 
> version number. The application/libraries are not meant to be a third party 
> and version numbers (XXX-snapshot, XXX-1.5) are not needed and I want to have 
> the same name each time regardless of the version. How do I accomplish this?

I seriously and strongly recommend that you *don't* do this.

The price of doing this is that you no longer know what version of your 
software you are looking at.

Production is giving problems, you need to check out the source code, 
quick. Which tag do you check out? You have no idea.

I have watched people using tools like Beyond Compare to painstakingly 
check whether one jar was the same as another one, just because the jar 
had no identifying marks on it.

Save yourself the pain and the suffering: don't do it.

Regards,
Graham
--

Reply via email to