geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Spec release numbers
Date Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:45:14 GMT
On 4/6/2010 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>    
>> On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>      
>>> Should we do like the server releases?
>>> The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
>>> releases introduce the third digit, like -
>>>    2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ....
>>>
>>>        
>> That's certainly not what's been done.  Going through the numbers, we have a mixture
of 1.0-SNAPSHOTS and 1.0.0-SNAPSHOTS for first releases, and also a mixture of maintenance
release numbers with both 2 and 3 digits.  Your suggestion sounds fine to me, though the specs
really never use the middle digit...or even the first one, for that matter!.
>>
>>      
>>> Bigger question, is what does OSGi want?  When we set version ranges
>>> like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs. 1.0.1 artifacts matter?
>>>
>>>        
>> The bundles don't export the version numbers of the spec implementation, but only
the version number of the interface they implement.  Thus the 1.0.0 version of geronimo-el_2.2_spec
exports the 2.2 version of the el packages.  The 1.0.0 version number does not show up there.
>>      
> IIUC osgi expects to come up with some package versions for ee spec apis that has no
relationship to the ee spec version but does follow osgi version semantics.  So, anything
we publish now will be at least 90% wrong and apt to produce problems if it's released into
the wild for everyone.  The only case I'm aware of where there's been some conclusion is to
version the jpa 2 api at 1.1.
>
> Maybe we should not version the packages in the jars until osgi firms up its idea of
what they should be????
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>    
I would seriously not recommend that...most of the build errors I've had 
to deal with only got sorted out by explicitly specifying the package 
versions.  And unfortunately, many of the bundles we pick up from other 
places are importing those same packages based on the java EE version 
numbers, not what the OSGi Alliance has decided to tag them as.  Damned 
if you do, damned if you don't :-(

Rick


>> Rick
>>      
>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/6/10 10:05 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec
>>>> projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the
>>>> release numbering.  Some of the projects use a two level release number
>>>> (e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g.,
>>>> 1.0.0).  It would be nice to make these consistent, and since we're
>>>> going to be releasing most of these shortly, now seems like a good time
>>>> to do this.
>>>>
>>>> So, the question I have is which system should we use?  Many projects
>>>> use a 3-level system, but in the case of the specs, I don't believe we
>>>> ever really use the middle digit when 3 levels are used.  That generally
>>>> would only occur when there are functional enhancements to the spec,
>>>> which generally results in a new subproject getting created to reflect
>>>> the spec number change.
>>>>
>>>> So, should we:
>>>>
>>>> [] Convert everything to two-digits
>>>> [] Convert everything to three-digits
>>>> [] Leave things the way they are
>>>>
>>>> If the consensus is we're fine the way we are, then the next question is
>>>> whether we should be using two or three digits for newly created spec
>>>> projects.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>
>    


Mime
View raw message