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: Who cares? [was: [DISCUSS] specs versioning]
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:23:55 GMT

On Dec 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Ok, I still don't have the brain power but this is in the back of  
> my mind.
>
> Here is my take (yes, I'm rehashing stuff).
>
> Currently what we have we don't want so we can eliminate the option  
> where we release everything under an uber version number that has  
> no bearing on the actual artifacts being released.  So, for  
> instance, when we released a modified version of JAAC its version  
> number was 1.1.1 and all the other modules in the branches/1.1 were  
> at 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.1 which is horribly confusing.
>
> We're left with other alternatives of which two seem to be the  
> current topic of discussion.
>
> Option 1:
> Version all modules independently with no association to each other  
> except through perhaps dependencies.
> - Makes releasing hard as coordinating multiple modules is the  
> responsibility of the consumer
> - Makes releasing easy as there is almost no interdependence so  
> work on different modules can proceed at their own pace.
>
> Option 2:
> Version all modules together under a single version number.  This  
> means if we changed JAAC in the above example all other modules  
> would also be released as -1.1.1 even though they didn't changed.
> - This makes releasing easy as all modules get pushed out a once.
> - This makes releasing hard as one module that is having trouble or  
> people don't have time to work on it holds up the whole train.
>
> The factor that I think impacts the above options the most is the  
> amount of churn in the specs.  A lot of churn makes interdependence  
> a PITA and makes option 1 favorable and a little churn makes option  
> 2 more favorable.
>
> Since specs are versioned / maintained infrequently, we hate the  
> existing system and we need to get past the debate and get  
> something done *I suggest that we adopt option 2*, give it a go,  
> and if it sucks wind then we move to version 3.0 and switch to  
> option 1.

Just to quietly raise my hand, we used to do option 2 on 1.0-M1  
through 1.0-M5 and I was release manager nearly all of those.  I  
advocated using one version for all specs.  I eventually grew to  
dislike that (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo- 
dev&m=113857091823325&w=2).

I understand institutional memory is short if people really want to  
do the one version thing again, that's cool.  I just want to go on  
record as saying I think the way we've attempted the one version for  
each approach also turned out to be flawed.  We should have marked  
all the dependencies of each spec with '<scope>provided' shutting off  
maven's transitivity which would fix every issue I'm aware of with  
managing relationships between specs.

Thanks,
David


>
> Either way people will be unhappy but getting past this roadblock  
> is important.
>
> Is anyone -1 on this approach?
>
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure that we will ever agree with each other.  I'm not  
>>> even trying to convince you or anyone else... cause at this point  
>>> I simply don't care.
>>
>> Before we continue this discussion, how about we first determine  
>> if anyone cares?
>>
>> If you care about how the specs use one version for all specs or  
>> one version for each spec, please respond to this email.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>


Mime
View raw message