geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Specs organization, versioning, and releasing
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:27:43 GMT
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Aug 22, 2006, at 1:37 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2006, at 9:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> As long as we have inter-dependencies between specs (e.g.  
>>>> javamail depends on activation; jaxrpc on saaj, qname, and  
>>>> servlet; and especially geronimo-spec-j2ee depends on  
>>>> everything), I'm not convinced that this really makes things any  
>>>> better...
>>>>
>>>> I agree that your plan is better than the previous plan for  
>>>> multiple trunks, but I'm not convinced that either plan is  
>>>> actually making things simpler...
>>>>
>>>> If I understand your proposal, tags/geronimo-spec-jaxrpc-<jax- 
>>>> rpcversion>/pom.xml will specify the tagged versions of saaj,  
>>>> qname, and servlet upon which it depends? So, haven't we just  
>>>> split apart the specification of these version dependencies from  
>>>> a single pom.xml into multiple poms? Is this really making  
>>>> things simpler?
>>>
>>> That'd be right.  I'm not sure how complicated that is, though.   
>>> None of those specs have changed in a year.  Can you give an non- 
>>> hypothetical example of something that does change and causes  
>>> this problem that isn't the J2EE uber-jar?
>
> Well, the current activation spec is at version 1.1. When that  
> version was bumped from 1.0 (or 1.0.x), you'd have needed to know/ 
> remember to change the poms in the following specs: geronimo-spec- 
> j2ee, geronimo-spec-javamail, geronimo-spec-jaxr, and geronimo-spec- 
> saaj.

Can we use version ranges to address this issue?

-dain

Mime
View raw message