geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <drw_...@yahoo.com>
Subject Plugin versioning problems
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:28:10 GMT
Why shouldn't the Plugin support be as robust as module dependencies and 
allow the user providing the plugin to decide if they can support 
geronimo_version=*, 1.* or 1.1* ?  Limiting the plugins to only support 
predefined 1.1, 1.2, 1.2-betaN and 1.2-rcN labels seems like a hack to 
me and doesn't follow previous email threads about not deviating from 
Maven2 versioning behavior...

Just as with the Tomcat JSP/Servlet Examples, you could easily provide a 
Plugin which should work on all 1.x releases....


-Donald



Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/7/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> 
>> Aaron,
>>
>> Joe put out a thread about the interpretation of versions which I 
>> think is exactly this problem.  If
>> we have a well understood algorithm for Versions that includes several 
>> aspects of the final qualifer
>> (if present) this would solve the issue.  So releases is just one of 
>> many possible uses.   Others
>> include patched versions, SNAPSHOTS, etc.
>>
>> Does this sound right to you?
> 
> 
> Well, only a little.  I would rather agree to use well-defined
> releases beta1-netaN followed by rc1-rcN followed by a final release.
> I don't want to say a plugin will support arbitrary releases
> designated by whatever token someone feels like using so long as it's
> valid according to our version calculation rules -- that seems likely
> to be problematic.  But in the plugin context, I'm only talking about
> the "Geronimo version", not the version of individual components like
> geronimo/jetty/1.1.3-patch5/car.  I agree that Joe's discussion needs
> to happen in relation to dependencies and versions of specific
> components *within* Geronimo.
> 
> I guess I better propose my release versioning issue in a separate
> thread for 1.1.N/1.2.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> 
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > OK, so we have a small issue with the plugins.
>> >
>> > They currently list the supported versions of Geronimo in their
>> > metadata.  The idea is that we don't state that a plugin will run in
>> > *any* version of Geronimo, we instead add each supported version as it
>> > is released.  Currently that list only contains 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>> >
>> > Now I can go add 1.1-20060607 to the list of supported versions for
>> > the 1.1 plugins, but we'll never be able to do that in advance.  It
>> > would be nicer if the release candidates had more predictable names
>> > (rc1, rc2, rc3, etc.) so we could add them to the supported version
>> > list ahead of time.
>> >
>> > We also have to decide how to handle SNAPSHOT versions of Geronimo.  I
>> > don't really think we want the released 1.1 plugins to claim that they
>> > support 1.2-SNAPSHOT, which may or may not be true depending on the
>> > extent of the changes.  I'm currently planning to have a different
>> > plugin repository for each major version of Geronimo, so the 1.1
>> > plugin repository will be fairly stable and the 1.2 plugin repository
>> > may need to be rebuilt a lot and won't likely have a very complete set
>> > of plugins until the release.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/7/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> Geronimo Users and Developers,
>> >>
>> >> We've been busy little beavers this evening and would like to share
>> >> the fruits of our labor.
>> >>
>> >> First, may we present the candidate build of Geronimo in Octographic
>> >> quality.  We have big builds,
>> >> little builds, some for Windows and others for Unix and of course the
>> >> ever enjoyable Tomcat and
>> >> Jetty versions.  Please take some time to take these builds and verify
>> >> that they meet your exacting
>> >> standards for a Geronimo Release.  As we like to say, "Big G, Little G
>> >> and things that rhyme with G."
>> >>
>> >> *Jetty*
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-20060607.tar.gz

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-20060607.zip

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-20060607.tar.gz

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-20060607.zip

>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *Tomcat*
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-20060607.tar.gz

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-20060607.zip

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-20060607.tar.gz

>>
>> >>
>> >> 
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/20060607/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-20060607.zip

>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Remaining items.
>> >>
>> >> 1. We need the ActiveMQ 3.2.4 to be released.
>> >> 2. Finalize release notes (Hernan...can you pick this one up?  A set
>> >> for today would be good)
>> >> 3. Move the remainging JIRAs out of 1.1.  (Aaron, Dain, anyone ?)
>> >> 4. Fix OpenEJB Source.  I versioned and released it but I haven't
>> >> fixed the SVN repo yet.  I'll do
>> >> this in the morning unless someone beats me to it.
>> >> 5. A vote.  I'm note sure if this can qualify for a vote since there
>> >> is a SNAPSHOT in the release.
>> >> It won't change but need to note that.  Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> To complete an official release I need to finalize the project version
>> >> and rebuild once again.
>> >>
>> >> Its late and I'm probably missing something so if there are barriers
>> >> to completing the final release
>> >> please let me know ASAP.
>> >>
>> >> I expect we'll start a 1.1.1 straightaway but let's get this 1.1 out
>> >> and going.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance for taking time to review this release of AG 1.1.
>> >>
>> >> The Geronimo Development Team
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message