geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release process change
Date Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:41:38 GMT
I don't think so.
You don't have to use a single tree with a unique version.
You can separate modules and release them independantly.
I agree that each separate set of modules should be released at once,
which is not the case currently with the specs.
But we could easily split the modules in its own tree and separate them
from the configs / assemblies.
What's wrong with that ?

On 12/23/06, jason.dillon@gmail.com <jason.dillon@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is NOT how mvn works folks... I've been trying to explain that to you for the past
weeks. You just don get it :-/
>
> Good luck
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:15:39
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process change
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >> From what I understand, the problem you are focusing on
> >> is just a naming problem: you want the GA release to be
> >> named 2.0.  That's fine.  But it only concerns the final
> >> downloadables archives, right ?
>
> This is a good point.  For the assemblies, from a "marketing"
> standpoint, we can version them any way we want.
>
> >
> > Nope, since mvn releases each component's artifact separately, its
> > not just the zip/tgz that one traditionally thinks of as the
> > release... its every single artifact that gets spit out of the
> > release.
>
> We should deal with the module versions separately from the
> assemblies.  I'll hop back on this next week...I'm taking a few days
> of R & R.
>
> Cheers
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> matt@hogstrom.org
>
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Mime
View raw message