geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr. <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Geronimo PMC Managed, project-specific Maven Repository
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:40:26 GMT

On Apr 1, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2005, at 4:53 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> No, but I worry about just bundling random whatever from outside 
>>>> the project with our releases.  It would help to use the svn 
>>>> revision on the jar, but we should really make it clear that it's 
>>>> something the geronimo project created for it's use, rather than 
>>>> confuse people that it might be an artifact from ActiveMQ.  The 
>>>> word 'SNAPSHOT' would help.
>>> SNAPSHOT has a specific meaning to Maven - it will cause it to check 
>>> the remote repo for a newer version (by timestamp) even if a copy 
>>> exists in the local repo.
>>> This is good for daily builds, a nightmare for anything where 
>>> consistency is required.
>>> So when we decide to do a milestone (or release) we need to ensure 
>>> there are no dependencies on versions with SNAPSHOT in them and 
>>> instead use ones that contain a SVN revision number or a CVS 
>>> timestamp:
>>> bad:    foo-bar-1.3-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> ok:     foo-bar-1.3-20050401.jar
>>> better: foo-bar-1.3-158653.jar
>> Going back to the original issue of an external project not wishing 
>> to do a release, we want to make it clear that this is something that 
>> we threw together ad hoc, and not something published by the external 
>> project.
> The upside to having a geronimo committer build the artifact himself 
> from source is that you have a better oversight in knowing from what 
> source code a binary was produced.  Perhaps we should tag the file 
> name with something, so it obvious it's an ad hoc build that an apache 
> committer through together.


>> And I'm still not comfortable doing something like that in a real 
>> geronimo release.
> I agree it's not the best solution, but it's something we have to deal 
> with.  Unless you are willing to hold up on doing geronimo releases 
> until all it's dependent software does an official release.  And then 
> this would apply transitively, such that you would have to wait till a 
> SNAPSHOT dependency of activemq is has been officially released.  etc.

Well, yah, sorta.  Milestones are less of a problem but "real" versions?

I don't think that we would be happy with some other project 
distributing jars called "geronimo-kernel-xxxx.jar" or the like.  Not 
only could it mean misery and pain in support, but also risk to 
reputation, and possibility of it containing code that we'd never 
release.  The last thing we need is to explain to someone that a 
geronimo jar containing BEA code (or whatever) really isn't a Geronimo 

I certainly feel the pain of the problem.  But if we can do whatever we 
can to get the other projects to do even 'beta' or 'rcx' releases... 
Hiram, do you know any influential committers on ActiveMQ? :D


> Regards,
> Hiram
>> geir
>> -- 
>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message