geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: One version for specs
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:35:43 GMT

On Oct 2, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> The main problem with compromise in this case... (not that I am  
> unwilling to do so), is that it appears that _any_ compromise  
> results in the same problem which I am trying to lead us away  
> from.  That problem being a complicated build and release process  
> due to needing deep insight into the dependencies of each spec (or  
> in your example, the groups of specs).

No, I wasn't advocating groups of specs.  Was more saying "let's just  
delete these specs from trunk" or otherwise get rid of them and leave  
only the specs that change and do the one version number thing.  The  
code is tagged, so it's safe.  Perhaps the issue is that we don't  
need these unchanging modules in trunk in the first place.  And just  
so you don't think I'm ignoring pom changes, the poms for the modules  
I listed are stable to (no deps on anything that's changed).

Thoughts?

-David

>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:16 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> In any case PLEASE think about this and make your opinion known  
>>> soon.
>>
>> If we could at least make a compromise that'd be very great, all  
>> or nothing is not the only way.
>>
>> Maybe we could just remove these core specs from trunk or  
>> something (we have several tags):
>>
>>  ejb
>>  servlet
>>  jsp
>>  jms
>>  transaction
>>  connector
>>  qname
>>
>> If all the rest became "one version number" specs released at the  
>> pace of the most changing spec, that'd still be less desirable but  
>> be at least better.
>>
>> Maybe not the best idea, just trying to find some middle ground.   
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message