Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44DB7C73.3020309@hogstrom.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:35:31 -0400
From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Independently version transaction and connector
References: <AE3954E7-43BB-45E4-A28A-3A144BEECC60@iq80.com>
 <44DB37CB.4040405@hogstrom.org>
 <F2804299-A8EC-45A8-A5EF-61109C7B73F0@iq80.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2804299-A8EC-45A8-A5EF-61109C7B73F0@iq80.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> 
>> I can see the difficulty pointed out by Jason and the benefit raised 
>> by Dain.  I've never liked versioning parts of Geronimo that rarely 
>> change and am all for making things more consumable externally.
>>
>> The proposal as it stands is fairly generic.  Is the idea to relocate 
>> Tx Manager and Connector to be top-level projects withing Geronimo and 
>> build separately or some kind of hybrid in the current tree.  If we 
>> are going to release them independently then I think they should be 
>> top-level in Geronimo (and I know thats a lot more work).
> 
> I wanted to get a general sense before discussing the details, since 
> there would be no point if were against independent versioning.  I was 
> thinking we should put each them in a tree which is a peer to Geronimo 
> trunk.  I also think we should generally only use released versions of 
> the jars in Geronimo (i.e., no snapshots) for two reasons 1) it is much 
> easier to maintain from a build perspective and 2) is will push us to do 
> more frequent releases of them.

Not sure I understand the last statement. (no snapshots)

> -dain
> 
> 
>