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: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.238 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=Dco19SlGbKehDfIxma1dajCcRwwIDnwmIJbnSzSK9XbifsnF1lkxHq6i+6opg7bGbxrwn9SlzqotHsmCGfsuHtI+L2eUGfSdji+I3uNz5k5eZ3l5hudf1QH+09UzqJXIduWqI6ycb9V88aG/8/I5tuxBxpEV/SAuJC9eJEoravk=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <CFB0A8D0-B4E1-466B-A9D7-0A17886DF848@planet57.com>
References: <7CBF95DA-D858-434C-85EE-DC0915A7E8E2@planet57.com>
 <CCD114C6-8843-4A50-812A-4F615A76148F@gmail.com>
 <F9CFB000-C755-4984-9294-0DA9CD5B6BD2@visi.com>
 <768F19A3-F0D5-4A97-9207-B9FC65B901D4@yahoo.com>
 <A2D41C79-AA7E-4FD6-8E87-8026951A0F78@gmail.com>
 <CFB0A8D0-B4E1-466B-A9D7-0A17886DF848@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <79C28C9D-19AE-4220-B8FD-C3AA3EA39658@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Specs organization, versioning, and releasing
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:02:54 -0400
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:03 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:24 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yup, you'd need to do some manual version bumping for each  
> scenario... except for the one version for all specs scenario.
>
>> A question for you, Jason: If someone wants to build our released  
>> specs from source, what's the process
>
> Should just be, check out the tag'd version(s) and mvn install.   
> Granted that if you want to build all of the released versions,  
> that you'd need to svn co each tag.
>
> Personally I'd be happy to just have one version for all specs.  It  
> does make it easier to release, and to some extent makes it easier  
> on users too, since they don't need to know what the version  
> compatibility is for all other related specs. They can just pick  
> one version and use that for all specs.
>
>  * * *
>
> But... most of the changes that I've got pending can go either  
> way... like using the same directory name as artifactId, site  
> config, etc...
>
> I'd still like to commit those soon... even i we are still debating  
> how to manage the versions as a whole.

OK, sounds good.

+1

--kevan