maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: continuous releasing: versions:set and/or release:update-version to release an aggregator project
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:50:07 GMT
the correct way I see to handle this is to support wildcards in
versions:set, e.g.

mvn versions:set -DgroupId=* -DartifactId=* -DoldVersion=*
-DnewVersion=1.2-SNAPSHOT

which would therefore match not just the invoked project but all projects
in the reactor.

The changes in MVERSIONS-131 go against the original spirit of the goal
(namely you cd to the module you want to change and ask for it to be
changed... the effective reactor is grown and all references down-stream of
that module's version change are updated accordingly.

If C does not have a parent effected by the change you are making then C
should not be changed by versions:set (without wildcard support)


On 1 August 2013 13:25, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@joda.org> wrote:

> I think this is perhaps related to problems I am seeing right now as well.
>
> Basically, the versions:set goal is buggy except in the classic case
> where the hierarchy of aggregation matches the hierarchy of
> inheritance.
>
> See
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MVERSIONS-131
> and
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MVERSIONS-184
>
> For example, given a tree:
> A (pom only)
> - B
> - C (pom only)
> - - D
> - - E
> where B and C are children of A
> and D and E are children of C
> and A aggregates B and C
> and C aggregates D and E
> In this case, versions:set plugin will work fine
>
> Now consider adding a new root R which aggregates A, but is not the parent
> of A.
> If you run versions:set on R it will only update R, and not A/B/C/D/E
>
> If you manually set the version of A, and then run versions:set on R,
> projects R/A/B/D/E will be updated, but not C. (which is pretty weird)
>
> The patch in MVERSIONS-131 sounds reasonable. Could it be evaluated?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 1 August 2013 09:55, Stephen Connolly
> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How I want this to work is to have versions-maven-plugin have a way to
> undo
> > versions:resolve-ranges (
> > http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/resolve-ranges-mojo.html)
> -
> > it would need to ensure that the lower bound of any unresolved range is
> the
> > resolved version... [see below]
> >
> > We'd need to split preparationGoals in the release plugin... either into
> > preparationGoals + verificationGoals or into initiationGoals +
> > preparationGoals (I favour the latter as it preserves the semantics of
> > preparationGoals... but the first one maps more correctly with what each
> > set should be doing)
> >
> > Then this would become super easy...
> >
> > You develop with version ranges for your dependencies...
> >
> > The release plugin would have
> >     initiationGoals = versions:resolve-ranges versions:commit
> >     preparationGoals = clean verify
> >     completionGoals = versions:unresolve-ranges versions:commit
> >
> > So say your development pom has
> >
> > <dependency>
> >   ...
> >   <artifactId>foo</artifactId>
> >   <version>[1.0,2.0)</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > and the latest version of foo is 1.2
> >
> > When you kick off the release, the range gets resolved to
> >
> > <dependency>
> >   ...
> >   <artifactId>foo</artifactId>
> >   <version>1.2<?versions range="[1.0,2.0)"?></version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > (My current thought is to use an XML PI to stash the old range)
> >
> > Then we invoke Maven again (because Maven doesn't re-read the poms) and
> do
> > a "clean verify" to make sure that this all builds
> >
> > Then we tag the release
> >
> > Then we run completionGoals and versions:unresolve-ranges puts the
> version
> > range back, but upping the lower bound
> >
> > <dependency>
> >   ...
> >   <artifactId>foo</artifactId>
> >   <version>[1.2,2.0)</version>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > Maven ups the pom version to next development snapshot and commits the
> pom
> >
> > That will give you the ability to develop on ranges (which is nice and
> > flexible) but release on pinned versions (which is exactly what you
> should
> > be doing)
> >
> > If we cannot deliver something like that, then I think we should just
> drop
> > ranges from the next major version of Maven.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 August 2013 06:19, Nestor Urquiza <nestor.urquiza@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Let me give more information,
> >>
> >> I use an aggregator project for war1 project:
> >>     <modules>
> >>         <module>../jar1</module>
> >>         <module>../jar2</module>
> >>         <module>../war-inc</module>
> >>         <module>../war1</module>
> >>     </modules>
> >>
> >> Another aggregator project for war2 project:
> >>     <modules>
> >>         <module>../jar1</module>
> >>         <module>../war-inc</module>
> >>         <module>../war1</module>
> >>     </modules>
> >>
> >> Notice they both depend on jar1. The jar2 project in fact depends also
> on
> >> jar1. The war-inc project is used to keep common web resources for war1
> and
> >> war2. We use maven overlay to marge those shared resources in a final
> war
> >> for each project.
> >>
> >> This is working like a charm. It has been working in fact now for 3
> years.
> >> However everytime we need a release we need to start updating version
> >> unmbers in dependencies, doing prepare, then perform, you know the
> story.
> >> This is great when the team releases every once in a while. This is an
> >> issue
> >> if you want to release several times a day. About resources needed and
> so
> >> on
> >> that is something we are tackling via idempotent scripts so we are
> >> literally
> >> ready to make sure we increase the version number for all projects at
> once
> >> every time new code is committed to the version control server. We can
> >> handle that last part with jenkins, that is not a problem either. The
> only
> >> problem is how can I leverage on an existing tool (without building it
> >> myself) that would allow to release all modules from just one command.
> >>
> >> So back to Roger suggestion I added the version override dependency as
> per
> >> the github project, updated the version tag to point to 0.2.0 and run
> the
> >> below command (including actually the very same example from github):
> >> mvn clean install -Dversion.override=1.2.3-RC-5
> >>
> >> However none of the modules were changed including no change to the
> >> aggregator project either.
> >>
> >> Roger, have you used this plugin with aggregator projects as I am
> trying?
> >> Could you provide some further guidance?
> >>
> >> My option is looking more and more like I will need to do something
> like:
> >> foreach module
> >>   replace module version
> >>   for each dependency
> >>     if it is a module
> >>       replace module version
> >>
> >> Then find out if mvn:prepare and mvn:perform will work after from the
> >> aggregator project releasing all necessary projects correctly. At this
> >> point
> >> I am already facing another issue. Let us suppose I update my two war
> >> multi-pom aggregator projects, all the modules and the dependencies to
> be
> >> version 2.2000.0-SNAPSHOT.
> >>
> >> I would expect a command line the below to change the version number in
> all
> >> modules to 2.2000.0, tag it preparing it for release as well as setting
> the
> >> next development version to be 2.2000.1-SNAPSHOT for all modules as
> well.
> >> Finally each dependency that is a module itself should also be changed
> to
> >> 2.2000.1-SNAPSHOT. But that does not work either:
> >> mvn clean --batch-mode release:prepare -DdryRun=true
> >> -DautoVersionSubmodules=true -DreleaseVersion=2.2000.0
> >> -DdevelopmentVersion=2.2000.1-SNAPSHOT
> >>
> >> The resulting pom.xml.tag gets updated even dependencies but the
> >> pom.xml.next gets updated (2.2000.1-SNAPSHOT) only for the version
> number
> >> of
> >> each project, nor for the dependencies which do stay the same
> >> (2.2000.0-SNAPSHOT). Will this be considered a bug?
> >>
> >> I hope it is clear now what I need and also what the current issues are:
> >> Not
> >> only versions:set and release:update-version do not work for
> >> multipom-aggregator projects but in addition release:prepare together
> with
> >> all the flags above which according to the documentation should be
> allowing
> >> to fix a version for a release.
> >>
> >> I guess an alternative question could be "how to provide continuous
> >> delivery
> >> with multi-pom aggregator maven projects". To be honest I do not like
> the
> >> idea of forcing all versions, it just looked the logical approach after
> we
> >> decided we really did not care for internal versions, they could be
> handled
> >> ideally automatically. However thinking twice about this I would like
> >> better
> >> maven to accept a pattern to set part of the snapshot version number
> while
> >> changing another part of it, for example with a mask:
> >>
> >> -DversionNumberIncrementalMask=x.1.0
> >>
> >> which would translate to:
> >> Leave first digit as is
> >> Increase by 1 second digit
> >> set to zero third digit
> >>
> >> Of course I would expect this to be applied to all snapshots.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the answers so far,
> >>
> >> - Nestor
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/continuous-releasing-versions-set-and-or-release-update-version-to-release-an-aggregator-project-tp5766275p5766461.html
> >> Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message