geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Version numbers for plugins of external apps
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:55:39 GMT

On Mar 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> How are we going to name plugins for external apps, such as roller  
> or apache directory?
>
> There are three versions involved:
> 1. geronimo version
> 2. external app version
> 3. plugin version
>
> I figure if we're developing/releasing it the groupId is going to be  
> o.a.g.plugins
>
> That leaves us with the artifactId and version to possibly encode  
> this info into.
>
> Lets assume a version number of x.y.z.
>
> Here are some possibilities:
>
> A.  Don't encode anything, just have the plugin version be (3).  So,  
> roller-jetty-1.0 would happen to be for roller 4.0 and geronimo 2.1,  
> and you'd have to look inside to find that out.  I'd suggest in this  
> case that changes in roller or geronimo versions would bump the  
> major version x or minor version y whereas releasing an enhanced  
> plugin for the same app and geronimo versions would bump z.
>
> B. Include the external app version in the artifactId and don't  
> encode the geronimo version.  E.g., roller-4.0-jetty-1.0 would  
> happen to be for geronimo 2.1 but you could see that it's for roller  
> 4.0 from the artifactId.  This is basically the solution we used for  
> specs.  I assume changing geronimo version would bump the major  
> version x or minor version y whereas releasing an enhanced plugin  
> for the same app and geronimo versions would bump z.
>
> C. Include both the external app version and geronimo version in the  
> artifactId, e.g. roller-4.0-g-2.1-jetty-1.0  would be the first  
> release of a roller plugin using roller 4.0 and geronimo 2.1.
>
> D. Include the geronimo version but not the external app version,  
> e.g. roller-g-2.1-jetty-1.0.
>
> I'm inclined to go for (A) but see arguments for everything except D.
>
> Thoughts?

Personally, I favor (A).  Simple and I think it will work just fine  
for most/all projects. I won't really have a problem if a more  
explicit scheme (e.g. (C) is preferred by the group).

--kevan 

Mime
View raw message