commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [ALL] Specification version
Date Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:48:45 GMT
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Le 18/06/2010 12:57, Jörg Schaible a écrit :
> 
>> since Sebb is going to modify the parent pom, I want also have your
>> opinion about the current values of the Specification-Version in the
>> manifests. Currently Maven generates uses the current version of the
>> artifact for "Specification-Version" and "Implementation-Version"
>> i.e."<Major>.<Minor>- SNAPSHOT" in case of a snapshot or "<Major.Minor>"
>> for the standard release. However, in case of a bugfix release, this
>> version is "<Major>.<Minor>.<Patch>". The ideal situation would
be IMHO
>> that we have the "Specification-Version" always using "<Major>.<Minor>"
>> while the "Implementation-Version" should stay the exact version that
>> Maven is using.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what's the benefit of doing this beside saving 2
> bytes on the final jar ? Is it relevant for the Commons components since
> we aren't defining/implementing standard APIs anyway ?

It is simply an expression of our policy to keep a major.minor version 
binary compatible.

> If we really want to care about these fields and follow the Sun rules
> rigorously, then the patch number should probably be preceded by an
> underscore instead of a dot:
> 
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/deployment/deployment-
guide/version-format.html

See the spec of the manifest, it only requires both version fields to be a 
"string".

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message