geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] specs versioning
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:59:11 GMT
On Dec 11, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> In several cases, you must release more than one spec at a time.   
>> But my point was more general... as in general its easier to  
>> manage releases for a set of modules together instead of one by one.
> You are assuming that is makes since to release a set of specs at  
> once.  Normally only one spec changes at a time (due to a bug),  
> then there is no reason to create a big set of every single spec  
> jar we have ever created just to release a single jar.

If that spec has not dependencies on other specs, sure... but there  
are some which are dependent, and in those cases you must handle them  
too... and I am telling you now that people will miss them and screw  
up the release, cause a bunch more work, and IMO a lot more confusion  
or even build related issues if the fixed release is the same version.

>>>> Also, if you consider hooking up this process to a build  
>>>> automation tool, so that each build gets released by that tool,  
>>>> then the specs project effectively needs to get split up into a  
>>>> project per-module, which is a bunch of unneeded overhead.
>>> Only the specs being worked on would need build automation, and  
>>> event then I would suggest G never uses SNAPSHOT specs.  Instead  
>>> when the specs are mostly complete we release a M1 and when they  
>>> are finished we release 1.0.  In that case no automation is  
>>> necessary.
>> It is still much easier to just setup one project for all of the  
>> specs rather than add/remove projects as needed.
>>  * * *
>> If you folks really want to version spec modules independently,  
>> then I suggest you also consider versioning server modules  
>> independently.
>> I certainly don't recommend doing either, but IMO they are both  
>> the same problem from a build perspective, just with slightly  
>> different context.
> I think you are using a lame rhetoric technique to make your  
> point.  You are saying if you want to do X, then you should  
> certainly do Y, and since no one would ever want to do Y, then we  
> should never do X.

Fine, whatever dude... I was using a lame technique you used earlier  
in this thread playing devils advocate.

> Things that are independently useable and move independently should  
> be versioned independently.  The specs are both in this case.

Its not worth the overhead.

  * * *

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.  I commented only because I believed your statements were  
a little overly simplified and misleading in the larger, longer term  

But, what do I know... I've been wrong before.

I'm sick and tired of this argument though, so just pick something  
and do it.


View raw message