geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <brett.por...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Specs directory structure
Date Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:10:18 GMT
Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.

I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:

servlet-2.4-1.0.

- Brett

On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
>
>    <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>    <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>    <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>    <version>1</version>
>
> So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
>
> BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
> version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
> mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases.  Also
> if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
> we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
> debug symbols to match-up.
>
> -dain
>
> On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> > I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
> > omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
> > probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer to have:
> > servlet-api-2.4
> > servlet-api-2.4-1
> > servlet-api-2.4-2
> > or similar.
> >
> > (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same
> > source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
> > creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
> > Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
> > anyway :)
> >
> > Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might
> > be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
> > the spec number.
> >
> > My 2cents...
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
> >> to get the proposal in one place.  With the help of Alan and Jason,
> >> this is what I got:
> >>
> >> Normally we just have this directory structure:
> >>
> >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
> >> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
> >>
> >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >> The pom for the specs would be like this:
> >>
> >>    <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >>      <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >>      <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> >>    <version>1.0</version>
> >> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
> >> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
> >>
> >>    <dependency>
> >>      <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >>      <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >>    <dependency>
> >>
> >> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
> >> geronimo/specs is very close to this.  The only big change will be to
> >> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
> >>
> >> What do yo think?
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message