Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 56149 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2010 02:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 7 Jun 2010 02:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 34589 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2010 02:06:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-forrest-dev-archive@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 34508 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2010 02:06:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@forrest.apache.org Received: (qmail 34499 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2010 02:06:12 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:06:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.111.4.29] (HELO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.29) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:06:05 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76099F8877 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=qket/YHT/gA6cU+ckdKmIm5mXSU=; b=esTbdpJCgp+mn6Iyv8MANwSnjiTQ62bayxpLj1uP5dbM+rldSog20Ve95YSNkyy7ytXVeavRARcjCvEjb90gv4i/uIjjC7R30GmI0pWcpdJHlrqF+Wn0l5thRcFcUzbR5UlEOb7hPCOoWCffLvOo5g+TcbSo7xohr9fI+/s7gng= X-Sasl-enc: QTKW23jLR5yGWZFngS3x0H8QuzHMps6/0/pEs8Uj7vmE 1275876337 Received: from localhost (dsl-41-216.wholesaledsl.com.au [125.168.41.216]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4092E4E5597 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:05:34 +1000 From: David Crossley To: dev@forrest.apache.org Subject: Re: release process for our plugins Message-ID: <20100607020534.GH40649@igg.local> References: <20100527091644.GC54036@igg.local> <20100604010028.GB20607@igg.local> <008201cb0384$b2d326e0$187974a0$@com.au> <20100604024933.GC20607@igg.local> <012b01cb0567$acb9f6f0$062de4d0$@com.au> <20100607002740.GD40649@igg.local> <01ac01cb05db$11d01f60$35705e20$@com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01ac01cb05db$11d01f60$35705e20$@com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Gav... wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > Gav... wrote: > > > > > > When code has been changed on a plugin since the last release, are we > > using > > > the > > > policy of 'lets upgrade the forrest version required as well as the > > plugin > > > version number' - that would make it easier all round. If that is ok, > > then I > > > can > > > just go round all plugins that have had any code changes since April > > 2007 > > > and bump > > > their forrest version numbers to 0.9 ? > > > > No. We are not using that policy. > > > > The "forrestVersion" only gets incremented if there are > > changes that "require" the current version of Forrest. > > > > To do what you are suggesting would mean that users of the > > released versions of Forrest would not get any plugin updates. > > Ok, but the plugins when rebuilt will be done so with Java 1.5 , how > will that affect things? Ah good point. We should have done a deploy of all plugins that had Java code (only some do) before doing that change. To answer, i don't know what effect it will have. > It's been so long since some were updated that I guess they would need > testing on 0.8 release before deciding if they are still compatible or > not. This is part of our past problems. We don't deploy those plugins often enough and don't pay sufficent attention to their version numbers. Hmmm, i don't know what to do. > > > Obviously any 'plugin releases' between forrest versions can just > > have their > > > 'plugin > > > version' bumped - and for any of these we intend to start voting on? > > (After > > > this > > > next Forrest release if I'm interpreting correctly) > > > > Again only if it "requires" v0.9 functionality. > > huh, Im talking 'plugin version' such as 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 not the > 'forrest version' > > But I get it now I think, any total code changes that warrant a new > plugin version number, such as any release would. Minor code changes > whould stay at the same version number until there are sufficient to > warrant a bump in number (i.e release) - And, if any of those code > changes introduce 0.9 specific functionality, then we bump the 'forrest > version' also. Therefore it is assumed the 'forrest version' number is > the _minimum_ version we are saying it _will_ work on. > > > Please see the explanation at > > http://forrest.apache.org/docs/dev/howto/howto-buildPlugin.html > > Oh, how I've read that a million times these last couple of days. Yeah, i understand. There are also some past dev discussions where Ross explained it. Also there are some JIRA tickets. > I have just updated the POD plugin - it had code changes from 2 years > ago, + doc changes and references dispatcher related documentation > examples that are or will be 0.9 specific, so I hope I was right in > bumping both the 'forrest version' and 'plugin version' in this case. (?) Bringing my comment over from that edit to try to keep the discussion together. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.forrest.cvs/9889/focus=27975 > > Sure it may have been updated, but if its own functionality > did not substantially change then leave its ""plugin-version" as-is. > > Did it require new "0.9" functionalty, If so then also > increment its "forrest.version". > > By the way would need to also happen in the Plugins descriptor file > e.g. plugins/plugins.xml etc.