You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/11/13 23:01:16 UTC
3.1-SNAPSHOT
Just a friendly nudge :-)
I noticed that OpenEJB trunk is still using 3.1-SNAPSHOT as the version
even though 3.1 was released a few weeks back. Shouldn't this be
updated to avoid confusion?
On a related note, I also noticed that OpenEJB snapshots are still being
generated with unique timestamps. This has been discouraged by infra
and many projects (Geronimo included) cut over to use non-unique
timestamps to help save space ... just something else to consider.
Joe
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Thank you David!
Joe
David Jencks wrote:
> hopefully fixed and deployed now. I also upgraded to apache pom 4,
> fixed the scm info, and turned off timestamped snapshots. I can't say I
> understand how the examples that don't deploy are supposed to fit into
> the build.... I'd think a profile would be a cleaner way to not deploy
> them.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:58 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with the
>> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
>>
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:07 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I just started this..... should be done in a few minutes
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Jacek!
>>>>
>>>> Can I also pester you (or another committer) to deploy snapshots for
>>>> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT? If you'd like me to I can do it as well ... just
>>>> thought it is more appropriate for an OpenEJB committer to do it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>>>>> Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
>>>>> Jacek
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
hopefully fixed and deployed now. I also upgraded to apache pom 4,
fixed the scm info, and turned off timestamped snapshots. I can't say
I understand how the examples that don't deploy are supposed to fit
into the build.... I'd think a profile would be a cleaner way to not
deploy them.
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:58 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with
> the 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
>
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:07 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I just started this..... should be done in a few minutes
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Jacek!
>>>
>>> Can I also pester you (or another committer) to deploy snapshots
>>> for 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT? If you'd like me to I can do it as well ...
>>> just thought it is more appropriate for an OpenEJB committer to do
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn
>>>> <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>>>> Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
>>>> Jacek
>>>
>>
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
More importantly in this case..... you have to specify the actual
parent pom. The definition of ${version} or any such variable is
going to be in the parent pom you are trying to specify.
There has been a lot of discussion on the maven lists at various times
about whether there is some way to default the parent pom version but
I haven't been following it closely and don't know if there are any
workable proposals in the works.
Also AFAIK unless you define "version" explicitly as a property it
means the same as ${pom.version} and doesn't cause problems -- also
AFAIK using ${pom.version} doesn't cause problems.
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> ${version} properties break the release plugin, and most likely
> other plugins.
>
> -dain
>
> On Nov 15, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM, David Jencks
>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with
>>> the
>>> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
>>
>> Thanks Dave. I thought it's enough to bump up the version in the main
>> pom.xml. Do you happen to know why it's required to place version in
>> each and every pom.xml file? Why don't we use ${version} property? I
>> vaguely recall a discussion in Geronimo where it was discouraged (?)
>> Perhaps Jason could shed some light on it. Knock, knock, Jason, you
>> there?
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
${version} properties break the release plugin, and most likely other
plugins.
-dain
On Nov 15, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with
>> the
>> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
>
> Thanks Dave. I thought it's enough to bump up the version in the main
> pom.xml. Do you happen to know why it's required to place version in
> each and every pom.xml file? Why don't we use ${version} property? I
> vaguely recall a discussion in Geronimo where it was discouraged (?)
> Perhaps Jason could shed some light on it. Knock, knock, Jason, you
> there?
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with the
> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
Thanks Dave. I thought it's enough to bump up the version in the main
pom.xml. Do you happen to know why it's required to place version in
each and every pom.xml file? Why don't we use ${version} property? I
vaguely recall a discussion in Geronimo where it was discouraged (?)
Perhaps Jason could shed some light on it. Knock, knock, Jason, you
there?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I didn't look hard enough... only the root pom is being built with the
3.1.1-SNAPSHOT version. Working on a fix.
david jencks
On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:07 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I just started this..... should be done in a few minutes
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> Thank you Jacek!
>>
>> Can I also pester you (or another committer) to deploy snapshots
>> for 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT? If you'd like me to I can do it as well ...
>> just thought it is more appropriate for an OpenEJB committer to do
>> it.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn
>>> <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>>> Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
>>> Jacek
>>
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I just started this..... should be done in a few minutes
thanks
david jencks
On Nov 14, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Thank you Jacek!
>
> Can I also pester you (or another committer) to deploy snapshots for
> 3.1.1-SNAPSHOT? If you'd like me to I can do it as well ... just
> thought it is more appropriate for an OpenEJB committer to do it.
>
> Thanks again,
> Joe
>
>
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>> Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
>> Jacek
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Thank you Jacek!
Can I also pester you (or another committer) to deploy snapshots for
3.1.1-SNAPSHOT? If you'd like me to I can do it as well ... just
thought it is more appropriate for an OpenEJB committer to do it.
Thanks again,
Joe
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>
> Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
>
> Jacek
>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just a friendly nudge :-)
Done. Committed revision 713979. Thanks Joe!
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
Notatnik Projektanta Java EE - http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Nov 14, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> How do you change the Maven snapshot behavior to use unique or
> non-unique timestamps?
<distributionManagement>
<site>
<id>openejb-website</id>
<url>scp://people.apache.org/www/openejb.apache.org/openejb/
maven</url>
</site>
<snapshotRepository>
<id>apache.snapshots</id>
<name>Apache Development Snapshot Repository</name>
<url>scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-
snapshot-repository</url>
<uniqueVersion>false</uniqueVersion>
</snapshotRepository>
</distributionManagement>
it's the uniqueVersion element... true means timestamps
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>>
>> I noticed that OpenEJB trunk is still using 3.1-SNAPSHOT as the
>> version even
>> though 3.1 was released a few weeks back. Shouldn't this be
>> updated to
>> avoid confusion?
>>
>> On a related note, I also noticed that OpenEJB snapshots are still
>> being
>> generated with unique timestamps. This has been discouraged by
>> infra and
>> many projects (Geronimo included) cut over to use non-unique
>> timestamps to
>> help save space ... just something else to consider.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
Re: 3.1-SNAPSHOT
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
How do you change the Maven snapshot behavior to use unique or
non-unique timestamps?
Thanks,
Aaron
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just a friendly nudge :-)
>
> I noticed that OpenEJB trunk is still using 3.1-SNAPSHOT as the version even
> though 3.1 was released a few weeks back. Shouldn't this be updated to
> avoid confusion?
>
> On a related note, I also noticed that OpenEJB snapshots are still being
> generated with unique timestamps. This has been discouraged by infra and
> many projects (Geronimo included) cut over to use non-unique timestamps to
> help save space ... just something else to consider.
>
> Joe
>
>
>