geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vamsavardhana Reddy" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r577890 - in /geronimo/server: branches/2.0/modules/geronimo-deployment/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/deployment/xmlbeans/ branches/2.0/modules/geronimo-j2ee-schema/src/test/resources/geronimo/ branches/2.0/modules/geronimo-jetty6
Date Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:46:52 GMT
>From "... I can live with introducing an optional element to an existing
schema" in your original e-mail, I assume that you are not totally against
the schema changes.  From what I understand, when a schema is changed
(except for some corrections in comments or some annotations), it can no
longer have the same version.  Others please correct me if my understanding
is wrong.  Also, before I started working on this issue, I have raised a
concern that the schema change may come in the way of the issue getting
fixed in 2.0.2.  But then the priority seemed to be not to break backward
compatibility of plugins which turned out to be no priority at all the as
the few plugins that we may want to preserve backward compatibility won't
run on G 2.0.1.  To not come in the way of backward compatibility, I
proposed a patch for branches\2.0 that did not change any interfaces.  But
then some other changes (for e.g. Holder class) have already broken
deserialization of config.ser's from G 2.0.1 in G 2.0.2.  I have even given
72 hours,  before committing the final patches, for anyone to raise any
concerns they have in the fix going into branches\2.0.

About what should go into a patch/minor release, I guess it is not
restricted to bug fixes alone.


On 9/21/07, Jarek Gawor <> wrote:
> I meant the geronimo-jetty-2.0.1.xsd, geronimo-web-2.0.1.xsd , and
> geronimo-tomcat-2.0.1.xsd.
> I guess the main question is what is our versioning policy (if any)
> and what should and should not go into a patch and/or minor release.
> Jarek
> On 9/21/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/21/07, Jarek Gawor <> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about these changes. Personally, I'm against any schema
> > > changes in branches/2.0 but I can live with introducing an optional
> > > element to an existing schema. However, introducing yet another schema
> > > in branches/2.0 seems wrong to me.
> >
> > I am not sure what this "yet another schema" is referring to.
> >
> > > Also, in trunk I would change the namespace to 2.1 (or something like
> > > that) as we might make even more changes to the schema before we
> > > release.
> >
> > IIUC changing the namespace in trunk should happen if there are more
> changes
> > to these schemas post 2.0.2 release.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> >
> > > Jarek
> > >
> >

View raw message