You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> on 2006/06/20 18:29:36 UTC
Version number in pom.xml
We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
files. What do you think we should use now?
SNAPSHOT?
1.0-SNAPSHOT?
0.1-SNAPSHOT?
Any opinions?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
[snip]
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number
> at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins.
> I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now. The maven
> version numbers should ALWAYS be:
> #.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT]
> or
> #.#[.#]-# (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something.
>
> After thinking about it, I might suggest:
> 0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
> where we use the SCA version number. That would kind of keep us from going
> to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing
> or not.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
I like that 0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT. If there's no objection I'll
change incubating-M1 to that tomorrow morning.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
The Tuscany project needs a set of spec jars that matches the
Tuscany implementation. These probably won't exactly match any
well-defined level of the spec, at least over the next few months
as the SCA spec evolves towards 1.0 and the SDO spec evolves
towards 2.1. I think these spec jars should be versioned in
the same way as the Tuscany implementation because they are
effectively part of it.
It would be possible for Tuscany to (in addition) do as you
suggest and produce spec jars at various published levels of the
"moving target" SCA and SDO specs. I don't think this would be
a good idea. It should be the spec group that produces official
spec jars matching given stable levels of the spec, such as 1.0,
1.1, etc. There's no reason for the spec group to produce jars
for intermediate draft levels such as 0.92 (because there is no
chance of applications being portable across implementations at
these intermediate draft levels). Similarly I don't see a
reason why Tuscany would produce spec jars matching these
intermediate levels unless they were needed as part of the
Tuscany implementation.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Simon Nash wrote:
>
>>I think the same reasoning should apply to the org.osoa jars.
>>We should not tie them to a particular SCA spec revision, such
>>as 0.92, while the spec is stil evolving. For example, by the
>>time we release M2, the spec may be at 0.93 or later. Also, not
>>all parts of the spec are currently at 0.92. Some are at 0.95.
>>For SDO APIs, the spec level that we are supporting is a mix of
>>2.01 and 2.1. I'm inclined to think we should just use
>> 1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>for the spec jars as well.
>>
>
>
> I think perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough. The "0.92" bit was really
> just an example. What I was really trying to say was that the version
> number for the spec jars should contain somewhere the version number of
> the spec document that the jar related to. It would be completely
> independent of the version of our implementation.
>
> Following this convention, the version for the jars we released with M1
> would change to
> 0.9-incubating
> as the Java C&I spec from November is "SCA Version 0.9, November 2005"
>
> When the next draft is published, the version would then be bumped to
> 0.92-incubating
> or whatever the final version of that draft is.
>
> We don't need to wait until M2 to version these jars - IMO their release
> cycle should be tied to specification releases rather than our
> implementation releases.
>
> This would also mean that the SDO API jars had a different version
> number, probably 2.01. Again this is different from what we support in a
> particular implementation release.
>
> The API jars should be a resource that can be used independently from
> Tuscany. For example, someone should be able to compile against them and
> know that their application would be portable to any other SCA
> implementation (at least at the API level, whether it worked would be a
> different issue).
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Simon Nash wrote:
>
> I think the same reasoning should apply to the org.osoa jars.
> We should not tie them to a particular SCA spec revision, such
> as 0.92, while the spec is stil evolving. For example, by the
> time we release M2, the spec may be at 0.93 or later. Also, not
> all parts of the spec are currently at 0.92. Some are at 0.95.
> For SDO APIs, the spec level that we are supporting is a mix of
> 2.01 and 2.1. I'm inclined to think we should just use
> 1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> for the spec jars as well.
>
I think perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough. The "0.92" bit was really
just an example. What I was really trying to say was that the version
number for the spec jars should contain somewhere the version number of
the spec document that the jar related to. It would be completely
independent of the version of our implementation.
Following this convention, the version for the jars we released with M1
would change to
0.9-incubating
as the Java C&I spec from November is "SCA Version 0.9, November 2005"
When the next draft is published, the version would then be bumped to
0.92-incubating
or whatever the final version of that draft is.
We don't need to wait until M2 to version these jars - IMO their release
cycle should be tied to specification releases rather than our
implementation releases.
This would also mean that the SDO API jars had a different version
number, probably 2.01. Again this is different from what we support in a
particular implementation release.
The API jars should be a resource that can be used independently from
Tuscany. For example, someone should be able to compile against them and
know that their application would be portable to any other SCA
implementation (at least at the API level, whether it worked would be a
different issue).
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I accept your point that we shouldn't tie Tuscany release numbers
to spec revision numbers. Given that, and the need to have some
number because of maven requirements, your suggestion of
1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
seems to be the best choice for the implementation code.
I think the same reasoning should apply to the org.osoa jars.
We should not tie them to a particular SCA spec revision, such
as 0.92, while the spec is stil evolving. For example, by the
time we release M2, the spec may be at 0.93 or later. Also, not
all parts of the spec are currently at 0.92. Some are at 0.95.
For SDO APIs, the spec level that we are supporting is a mix of
2.01 and 2.1. I'm inclined to think we should just use
1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
for the spec jars as well.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>Simon,
>>
>>Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number
>>at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins.
>>I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now. The maven
>>version numbers should ALWAYS be:
>>#.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT]
>>or
>>#.#[.#]-# (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something.
>>
>>After thinking about it, I might suggest:
>>0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
>>where we use the SCA version number. That would kind of keep us from going
>>to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing
>>or not.
>>
>
>
> Sounds like the maven requirements set the format and we just need to
> pick the version number and whether it's all #.# or if we have Mx text
> in it as well.
>
> I think there is a good chance that we will deliver multiple releases at
> the same version level of the spec (especially when the spec matures and
> updates more slowly). As a result, I don't think that we should pin the
> version of our release to the spec number.
>
> Most projects have a [major].[minor].[bugfix] type version number with
> rules for bumping major and minor numbers based on compatibility between
> releases. We should do something similar.
>
> There is also the "don't use 1.X or x.0 of any software" rule, so
> perhaps we should get beyond 1.0 as soon as possible. I remember people
> not wanting to use OpenEJB just because it had a 0.9 version number -
> they kept waiting for 1.0 to come out.
>
> In light of all that, I think we should go with the basic
> 1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> for the Tuscany implementations.
>
> Having said that I do think tracking the spec version would be useful in
> the org.osoa jars (sdo and sca APIs). I would suggest for them we go with
>
> 0.92-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> based on the revision number of the spec document.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number
> at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins.
> I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now. The maven
> version numbers should ALWAYS be:
> #.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT]
> or
> #.#[.#]-# (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something.
>
> After thinking about it, I might suggest:
> 0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
> where we use the SCA version number. That would kind of keep us from going
> to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing
> or not.
>
Sounds like the maven requirements set the format and we just need to
pick the version number and whether it's all #.# or if we have Mx text
in it as well.
I think there is a good chance that we will deliver multiple releases at
the same version level of the spec (especially when the spec matures and
updates more slowly). As a result, I don't think that we should pin the
version of our release to the spec number.
Most projects have a [major].[minor].[bugfix] type version number with
rules for bumping major and minor numbers based on compatibility between
releases. We should do something similar.
There is also the "don't use 1.X or x.0 of any software" rule, so
perhaps we should get beyond 1.0 as soon as possible. I remember people
not wanting to use OpenEJB just because it had a 0.9 version number -
they kept waiting for 1.0 to come out.
In light of all that, I think we should go with the basic
1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT
for the Tuscany implementations.
Having said that I do think tracking the spec version would be useful in
the org.osoa jars (sdo and sca APIs). I would suggest for them we go with
0.92-incubating-SNAPSHOT
based on the revision number of the spec document.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Simon,
Unfortunately, with the way Maven 2 works, if you don't have a version number
at the beginning, you are asking for problems, especially for maven plugins.
I've gone over this with the Maven folks a couple times now. The maven
version numbers should ALWAYS be:
#.#[.#]*[-text][-SNAPSHOT]
or
#.#[.#]-# (for updates to a release), like 1.0-1 or something.
After thinking about it, I might suggest:
0.92-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
where we use the SCA version number. That would kind of keep us from going
to a 1.0 release until the spec is 1.0. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing
or not.
Dan
On Wednesday June 21 2006 5:12 am, Simon Nash wrote:
> I think M2 is better than 0.9 because it simply says that this
> is the next milestone after M1, rather than carrying some kind
> of "90% complete" implication.
>
> However I'm not quite sure about the "1.0" designation at the
> beginning. This seems to imply that when incubation is complete,
> we will immediately deliver a 1.0 release. This is certainly
> one possible (and desirable) scenario, but I can imagine other
> circumstances that might make us choose to do a post-incubation
> release at some level that is less than 1.0. For example, what
> if at the time we exit incubation, the current published SCA spec
> is only at a 0.95 level? Might we choose to deliver a 0.95
> Tuscany release matching that spec, and upgrade to a 1.0 release
> when the spec upgrades to 1.0 and we have matching code?
>
> I don't really want to get into a debate now about the probability
> of such a situation arising. But if there is even a small chance
> that we might not jump immediately from incubation to a 1.0 release,
> then I'd suggest using something like "incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT" to
> give us a bit more flexibility down the road.
>
> Simon
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> > Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> 1.0-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
> >>
> >> is probably the "technical" version number we should be using. It
> >> specifically states we are working on the snapshot version of
> >> "1.0-incubating-M2" which I assume will be the version we use when we
> >> release M2.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On Tuesday June 20 2006 12:29 pm, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> >>> We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
> >>> files. What do you think we should use now?
> >>> SNAPSHOT?
> >>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >>> 0.1-SNAPSHOT?
> >>>
> >>> Any opinions?
> >
> > This makes sense to me but what do others think?
> >
> > If I remember correctly at some point I had proposed 0.9 and some of us
> > thought that a 0.9 version number could give false expectations in terms
> > of stability/completeness. Are we running the same risk with a
> > 1.0-incubating-M2? Or do you think that having -M2 at the end makes it
> > clear that this will only be a Milestone release and not a 1.0 release?
> >
> > If there is no objections, I'll change the version numbers to
> > 1.0-incubating-M2 on Thursday morning.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
daniel.kulp@iona.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I think M2 is better than 0.9 because it simply says that this
is the next milestone after M1, rather than carrying some kind
of "90% complete" implication.
However I'm not quite sure about the "1.0" designation at the
beginning. This seems to imply that when incubation is complete,
we will immediately deliver a 1.0 release. This is certainly
one possible (and desirable) scenario, but I can imagine other
circumstances that might make us choose to do a post-incubation
release at some level that is less than 1.0. For example, what
if at the time we exit incubation, the current published SCA spec
is only at a 0.95 level? Might we choose to deliver a 0.95
Tuscany release matching that spec, and upgrade to a 1.0 release
when the spec upgrades to 1.0 and we have matching code?
I don't really want to get into a debate now about the probability
of such a situation arising. But if there is even a small chance
that we might not jump immediately from incubation to a 1.0 release,
then I'd suggest using something like "incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT" to
give us a bit more flexibility down the road.
Simon
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>> 1.0-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> is probably the "technical" version number we should be using. It
>> specifically states we are working on the snapshot version of
>> "1.0-incubating-M2" which I assume will be the version we use when we
>> release M2.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday June 20 2006 12:29 pm, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
>>> files. What do you think we should use now?
>>> SNAPSHOT?
>>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
>>> 0.1-SNAPSHOT?
>>>
>>> Any opinions?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This makes sense to me but what do others think?
>
> If I remember correctly at some point I had proposed 0.9 and some of us
> thought that a 0.9 version number could give false expectations in terms
> of stability/completeness. Are we running the same risk with a
> 1.0-incubating-M2? Or do you think that having -M2 at the end makes it
> clear that this will only be a Milestone release and not a 1.0 release?
>
> If there is no objections, I'll change the version numbers to
> 1.0-incubating-M2 on Thursday morning.
>
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK nash@hursley.ibm.com
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 1.0-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
>
> is probably the "technical" version number we should be using. It
> specifically states we are working on the snapshot version
> of "1.0-incubating-M2" which I assume will be the version we use when we
> release M2.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Tuesday June 20 2006 12:29 pm, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>
>> We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
>> files. What do you think we should use now?
>> SNAPSHOT?
>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
>> 0.1-SNAPSHOT?
>>
>> Any opinions?
>>
>
>
This makes sense to me but what do others think?
If I remember correctly at some point I had proposed 0.9 and some of us
thought that a 0.9 version number could give false expectations in terms
of stability/completeness. Are we running the same risk with a
1.0-incubating-M2? Or do you think that having -M2 at the end makes it
clear that this will only be a Milestone release and not a 1.0 release?
If there is no objections, I'll change the version numbers to
1.0-incubating-M2 on Thursday morning.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Version number in pom.xml
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
1.0-incubating-M2-SNAPSHOT
is probably the "technical" version number we should be using. It
specifically states we are working on the snapshot version
of "1.0-incubating-M2" which I assume will be the version we use when we
release M2.
Dan
On Tuesday June 20 2006 12:29 pm, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> We currently have <version>incubating-M1</version> in all our pom.xml
> files. What do you think we should use now?
> SNAPSHOT?
> 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
> 0.1-SNAPSHOT?
>
> Any opinions?
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
daniel.kulp@iona.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org