You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> on 2006/12/04 15:44:56 UTC
SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Hi All,
is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the revision number?
It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2 documentation.
Cheers!
Hernan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
yup, that's pretty much my point. Not that the reader wont be able to understand the doc if the screenshots look different from the final release. But it will make the content more clear, more representative of the release covered.
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter?
>>
>> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap, then
>> why bother updating it?
>
> I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like the
> actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-SNAPSHOT"
> or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a pretty reasonable
> request, to me...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I think this is kinda dangerous...
For example, what if you had that property to make it look like the
1.2 final release and then the UI was actually changed. You now have
confused users wondering why the 1.2 shot on the website is different
from the final.
And what happens when 1.2.1 is release? Need to make all new screen
shots?
I think its a waste of time.
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> yup, that's pretty much my point. Not that the reader wont be able
> to understand the doc if the screenshots look different from the
> final release. But it will make the content more clear, more
> representative of the release covered.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> Why does it matter?
>>>
>>> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap,
>>> then why bother updating it?
>> I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like
>> the actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-
>> SNAPSHOT" or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a
>> pretty reasonable request, to me...
>> --kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
yup, that's pretty much my point. Not that the reader wont be able to understand the doc if the screenshots look different from the final release. But it will make the content more clear, more representative of the release covered.
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter?
>>
>> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap, then
>> why bother updating it?
>
> I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like the
> actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-SNAPSHOT"
> or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a pretty reasonable
> request, to me...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
yup, that's pretty much my point. Not that the reader wont be able to understand the doc if the screenshots look different from the final release. But it will make the content more clear, more representative of the release covered.
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter?
>>
>> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap, then
>> why bother updating it?
>
> I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like the
> actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-SNAPSHOT"
> or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a pretty reasonable
> request, to me...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Eh... i'm all for helping folks out... but I don't really see the
value in this... and more so I see some potential dangers.
I don't think its worth it... but I'm not going to lobby to get the
effort shutdown... but I'm not gonna walk you to the plank either.
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> is this all for web console shots? If so, then update the console
>> to make that configurable.
>>
>> But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out,
>> then I think that its be a very bad idea to change the project
>> version just for a screen shot.
>>
>> Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the
>> property thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more
>> burden/overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
>
> Jason,
> Hernan wants to create 1.2 documentation. He wants that
> documentation to be as close to the the actual user experience as
> he can. I think that is *fantastic*. And I think we could give him
> a bit of support in his efforts.
>
> Here's how it could work:
>
> 1) Hernan could make a private update to his pom.xml and build a
> preview of 1.2. There may be a few stumbling blocks, here. Hard-
> coded versions, OpenEJB dependencies, etc.
> 2) Hernan uses this preview build to generate reasonably accurate
> screenshots. No code is checked into svn. No artifacts are deployed
> to maven repos.
>
> I assume that Hernan's m2 repo/build environment will not build 1.2-
> SNAPSHOT properly after that. So, when Hernan is done, he wipes out
> his build tree and maven repo (or geronimo sections of his repo)
> and reverts back to 1.2-SNAPSHOT.
>
> What's so bad about all that?
>
> I'm certainly willing to lend Hernan a hand to get his environment
> up and running. I would hope that others involved with the 1.2
> release might actually want to help him out too...
>
> --kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Eh... its just my opinion. I thought I had explained why I thought
this was a bad idea in previous emails.
But... I don't think this is worth debating either. So if you feel
strongly about it... then go do it. I still don't like it, but I can
live with that.
--jason
On Dec 5, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Once again Kevan beat me on the reply ( man, don't you stop for
> dinner !? ;-) )
>
> Jason, I don't get why you think this is so bad. I'm talking about
> tweaking my local copy so I can make the doc look closer to the
> final Geronimo release. If some areas change later on, that's fine,
> I'm expecting so. But that would be just a very few areas, or you
> think the whole console and commands will change from now on until
> the final cut is released?
>
> In addition, there are some already reported bugs in the console
> and I will have to revisit those areas either way. I'm just trying
> to keep the "revisiting" to a minimum and save some time.
>
> This is what I originally asked help for.
>
> <snip>
> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
> revision number?
> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
> documentation. </snip>
>
> If there is no way to do it locally due to external dependencies,
> then fine, I can't, end of story. I'll need to find another way to
> get a similar result.
>
> With that said, I'm about try Kevan's suggestion on tweaking the
> pom.xml and see how it goes.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> is this all for web console shots? If so, then update the
>>> console to make that configurable.
>>>
>>> But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out,
>>> then I think that its be a very bad idea to change the project
>>> version just for a screen shot.
>>>
>>> Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the
>>> property thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more
>>> burden/overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
>> Jason,
>> Hernan wants to create 1.2 documentation. He wants that
>> documentation to be as close to the the actual user experience as
>> he can. I think that is *fantastic*. And I think we could give him
>> a bit of support in his efforts.
>> Here's how it could work:
>> 1) Hernan could make a private update to his pom.xml and build a
>> preview of 1.2. There may be a few stumbling blocks, here. Hard-
>> coded versions, OpenEJB dependencies, etc.
>> 2) Hernan uses this preview build to generate reasonably accurate
>> screenshots. No code is checked into svn. No artifacts are
>> deployed to maven repos.
>> I assume that Hernan's m2 repo/build environment will not build
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT properly after that. So, when Hernan is done, he
>> wipes out his build tree and maven repo (or geronimo sections of
>> his repo) and reverts back to 1.2-SNAPSHOT.
>> What's so bad about all that?
>> I'm certainly willing to lend Hernan a hand to get his environment
>> up and running. I would hope that others involved with the 1.2
>> release might actually want to help him out too...
>> --kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Once again Kevan beat me on the reply ( man, don't you stop for dinner !? ;-) )
Jason, I don't get why you think this is so bad. I'm talking about tweaking my local copy so I can make the doc look closer to the final Geronimo release. If some areas change later on, that's fine, I'm expecting so. But that would be just a very few areas, or you think the whole console and commands will change from now on until the final cut is released?
In addition, there are some already reported bugs in the console and I will have to revisit those areas either way. I'm just trying to keep the "revisiting" to a minimum and save some time.
This is what I originally asked help for.
<snip>
is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the revision number?
It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2 documentation.
</snip>
If there is no way to do it locally due to external dependencies, then fine, I can't, end of story. I'll need to find another way to get a similar result.
With that said, I'm about try Kevan's suggestion on tweaking the pom.xml and see how it goes.
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> is this all for web console shots? If so, then update the console to
>> make that configurable.
>>
>> But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out, then I
>> think that its be a very bad idea to change the project version just
>> for a screen shot.
>>
>> Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the property
>> thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more
>> burden/overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
>
> Jason,
> Hernan wants to create 1.2 documentation. He wants that documentation to
> be as close to the the actual user experience as he can. I think that is
> *fantastic*. And I think we could give him a bit of support in his efforts.
>
> Here's how it could work:
>
> 1) Hernan could make a private update to his pom.xml and build a preview
> of 1.2. There may be a few stumbling blocks, here. Hard-coded versions,
> OpenEJB dependencies, etc.
> 2) Hernan uses this preview build to generate reasonably accurate
> screenshots. No code is checked into svn. No artifacts are deployed to
> maven repos.
>
> I assume that Hernan's m2 repo/build environment will not build
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT properly after that. So, when Hernan is done, he wipes out
> his build tree and maven repo (or geronimo sections of his repo) and
> reverts back to 1.2-SNAPSHOT.
>
> What's so bad about all that?
>
> I'm certainly willing to lend Hernan a hand to get his environment up
> and running. I would hope that others involved with the 1.2 release
> might actually want to help him out too...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> is this all for web console shots? If so, then update the console
> to make that configurable.
>
> But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out,
> then I think that its be a very bad idea to change the project
> version just for a screen shot.
>
> Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the
> property thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more
> burden/overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
Jason,
Hernan wants to create 1.2 documentation. He wants that documentation
to be as close to the the actual user experience as he can. I think
that is *fantastic*. And I think we could give him a bit of support
in his efforts.
Here's how it could work:
1) Hernan could make a private update to his pom.xml and build a
preview of 1.2. There may be a few stumbling blocks, here. Hard-coded
versions, OpenEJB dependencies, etc.
2) Hernan uses this preview build to generate reasonably accurate
screenshots. No code is checked into svn. No artifacts are deployed
to maven repos.
I assume that Hernan's m2 repo/build environment will not build 1.2-
SNAPSHOT properly after that. So, when Hernan is done, he wipes out
his build tree and maven repo (or geronimo sections of his repo) and
reverts back to 1.2-SNAPSHOT.
What's so bad about all that?
I'm certainly willing to lend Hernan a hand to get his environment up
and running. I would hope that others involved with the 1.2 release
might actually want to help him out too...
--kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
is this all for web console shots? If so, then update the console to
make that configurable.
But if its for build shorts, like capturing what mvn spits out, then
I think that its be a very bad idea to change the project version
just for a screen shot.
Actually I think its a waste of time to even bother with the property
thing, but if its low impact, and does not add any more burden/
overhead for the normal build/release, then I think its fine.
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter?
>>
>> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap,
>> then why bother updating it?
>
> I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like
> the actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-
> SNAPSHOT" or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a
> pretty reasonable request, to me...
>
> --kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Why does it matter?
>
> If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap,
> then why bother updating it?
I think Hernan wants to generate screenshots which will look like the
actual 1.2 release. The current screenshots must contain "1.2-
SNAPSHOT" or "1.2-rxxx" for artifact names. This seems like a pretty
reasonable request, to me...
--kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Why does it matter?
If the final release for a given screen is the same as the snap, then
why bother updating it?
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> basically "screenshots". In the doc I'm including lost of
> screenshots (both terminal and console) and these either show
> *SNAPSHOT* or *r480769*.
> When we release v1.2 all these disappear so I would have to re-take
> those screenshots that are affected, which is a large percentage.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Why would that save you time?
>> --jason
>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
>>> revision number?
>>> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Hernan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
basically "screenshots". In the doc I'm including lost of screenshots (both terminal and console) and these either show *SNAPSHOT* or *r480769*.
When we release v1.2 all these disappear so I would have to re-take those screenshots that are affected, which is a large percentage.
Cheers!
Hernan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Why would that save you time?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the revision
>> number?
>> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
>> documentation.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>
>
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Why would that save you time?
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hi All,
> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
> revision number?
> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
> documentation.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I think that is asking for trouble... lots of trouble.
--jason
On Dec 4, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
>> revision number?
>> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
>> documentation.
>
> Hernan,
> You can always update your pom.xml locally and change the Geronimo
> version from 1.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.2. Like:
>
> - <version>1.2-SNAPSHOT</version>
> + <version>1.2</version>
>
>
> I haven't tried it. Possible that you'll run into some build
> problems/dependency issues...
>
> --kevan
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Hernan,
here are some additional things that must be done:
1. Each pom.xml has a <parent>...</> which has "1.2-SNAPSHOT" string
in it. It must be changed to 1.2. It can be easily fixed with a script.
2. Build openejb locally using
mvn -o -DgeronimoVersion=1.2
Thanks
Anita
--- Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> > is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
> > revision number?
> > It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
> > documentation.
>
> Hernan,
> You can always update your pom.xml locally and change the Geronimo
> version from 1.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.2. Like:
>
> - <version>1.2-SNAPSHOT</version>
> + <version>1.2</version>
>
>
> I haven't tried it. Possible that you'll run into some build
> problems/
> dependency issues...
>
> --kevan
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Re: SNAPSHOT - Revision #
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 4, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Hi All,
> is there a way I could locally get rid of the SNAPSHOT or the
> revision number?
> It will really save me a lot of time with the Geronimo v1.2
> documentation.
Hernan,
You can always update your pom.xml locally and change the Geronimo
version from 1.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.2. Like:
- <version>1.2-SNAPSHOT</version>
+ <version>1.2</version>
I haven't tried it. Possible that you'll run into some build problems/
dependency issues...
--kevan