geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:35:12 GMT
For what it's worth, Jason's proposal sounds reasonable to me*.  But I
don't really fancy changing all the current names either.  :)

Thanks,
       Aaron

* Well, I can't say that 1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT made sense at first glance,
but the 1.1MR3-1 followed by 1.1MR3-2 seems clear.

On 3/29/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
> > version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant)
> > groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs
> >
> > the spec version is 1.1MR3
> >
> > It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming.
>
> I think we should reconsider the convention.  And use the artifacts
> version to contain *all* of the version information.  Since the
> current convention's version is mostly irrelevant anyways, I suggest
> that we use the spec's version + revision number (counter) as the
> version.
>
> That makes the above look like:
>
>      artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment-spec
>      groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs
>      version=1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT
>
> And when released the version would be:
>
>      version=1.1MR3-1
>
> This indicates the spec version and a revision count for how many
> update/iterations we have applied to it.  When its time to make a new
> revision then we'd have:
>
>      version=1.1MR3-2
>
> And when the spec version changes to say 1.2, then we'd have:
>
>      version=1.2-1
>
> IMO this is *much* more natural and allows us to use the Maven
> dependencyManagement section to manage all version information
> effectively for child modules.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message