geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:44:47 GMT
Eh... its just my opinion.  I thought I had explained why I thought  
this was a bad idea in previous emails.

But... I don't think this is worth debating either.  So if you feel  
strongly about it... then go do it.  I still don't like it, but I can  
live with that.


On Dec 5, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:

> Once again Kevan beat me on the reply ( man, don't you stop for  
> dinner !? ;-)  )
> Jason, I don't get why you think this is so bad. I'm talking about  
> tweaking my local copy so I can make the doc look closer to the  
> final Geronimo release. If some areas change later on, that's fine,  
> I'm expecting so. But that would be just a very few areas, or you  
> think the whole console and commands will change from now on until  
> the final cut is released?
> In addition, there are some already reported bugs in the console  
> and I will have to revisit those areas either way. I'm just trying  
> to keep the "revisiting" to a minimum and save some time.
> This is what I originally asked help for.
> <snip>
> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the  
> revision number?
> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2  
> documentation. </snip>
> If there is no way to do it locally due to external dependencies,  
> then fine, I can't, end of story. I'll need to find another way to  
> get a similar result.
> With that said, I'm about try Kevan's suggestion on tweaking the  
> pom.xml and see how it goes.
> Cheers!
> Hernan
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> is this all for web console shots?  If so, then update the  
>>> console to make that configurable.
>>> But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out,  
>>> then I think that its be a very bad idea to change the project  
>>> version just for a screen shot.
>>> Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the  
>>> property thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more  
>>> burden/overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
>> Jason,
>> Hernan wants to create 1.2 documentation. He wants that  
>> documentation to be as close to the the actual user experience as  
>> he can. I think that is *fantastic*. And I think we could give him  
>> a bit of support in his efforts.
>> Here's how it could work:
>> 1) Hernan could make a private update to his pom.xml and build a  
>> preview of 1.2. There may be a few stumbling blocks, here. Hard- 
>> coded versions, OpenEJB dependencies, etc.
>> 2) Hernan uses this preview build to generate reasonably accurate  
>> screenshots. No code is checked into svn. No artifacts are  
>> deployed to maven repos.
>> I assume that Hernan's m2 repo/build environment will not build  
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT properly after that. So, when Hernan is done, he  
>> wipes out his build tree and maven repo (or geronimo sections of  
>> his repo) and reverts back to 1.2-SNAPSHOT.
>> What's so bad about all that?
>> I'm certainly willing to lend Hernan a hand to get his environment  
>> up and running. I would hope that others involved with the 1.2  
>> release might actually want to help him out too...
>> --kevan

View raw message