commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <>
Subject Re: [jelly] commons-jelly-SNAPSHOT.jar on ibilio is old ?
Date Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:06:00 GMT

Brett Porter wrote:
> (continuing the trend of answering two messages in one :)
>>Sigh, we really suffer with this misnomer over and over again. In Maven 
>>"SNAPSHOT" is just a reference to the latest version of an artifact. So, 
>>yes, "SNAPSHOT's" are allowed in the ASF repository. What are not 
>>allowed are daily or interim builds (which are what people are mistaking 
>>"SNAPSHOT" to mean, these go into the developer repo at 
> At the moment, a SNAPSHOT link is not updated for releases generally, so I think
> it is safer to not keep them in the ASF repository to avoid confusion.
> Generally, if you are only interested in releases you will specify the actual
> release name. If you are interested in SNAPSHOTs, you'll be interested in
> something newer than the last release.

Your right, SNAPSHOT related activity is very much a developer thing, 
projects that have this project as a dependency will be dependent on 
official versions. So the repository could easily get away without 


>>Yes, old snapshots are a problem, jelly releasing versions should be 
>>kept up with the Maven versions, It makes sense that when a release of 
>>maven occurs it should use the published versions of its dependencies. 
> I assume this is now referring to Maven 1.0 using a timestamped version of
> Jelly? We might as well rename that timestamp beta-X as it became semi official
> by our use. However, the latest beta of Jelly at the time was not working with
> Maven and not worth the risk to include, and the prior beta was much older.
> Maven's HEAD now uses Jelly beta-4 and will use 1.0 when it is out. Most if not
> all of the snapshot dependencies have been removed.

This really sounds to me like Jelly needs a more aggressive release 
schedule, way too many "betas". I suspect many of these betas could have 
been versions in their own right. Just cut the release and get some 
official verisoning going. I feel Math suffered this as well, but Math 
finally made a release thanks primarily to Phil (salute!).

>>I suspect that this makes sense for gump as long as interim releases are 
>>only being used by gump and not by releases. If the Maven build is 
>>dependent on an interim release of jelly and it does a release, 
>>shouldn't jelly do a release as well to make sure that the appropriate 
>>version is used in the release.
> I think this is unlikely to happen again, but yes - Maven now being up to date
> with Jelly's CVS would push for a release if dependant on any interim release.
> - Brett

Hear Hear.

Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message