On Mar 31, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I think we should keep as much history as possible, at least the dependencies for all maintained branches.
I would say, we never remove a jar. A SNAPSHOT jar should just be a simlink to a numbered jar (this is what maven does already).
Re the snapshots, doesn't that result in piles of useless crap? I mean, why keep the old numbered jars around? The build conditions for them are variable at best, and I can't think of situations where you'd need to go and use an old one. ?
It could. But the main argument to keep old numbered snapshot jars is so that you can build an old source release of of geronimo that might depend on a old numbered snapshot release.
How? do we ever list the snapshot number in project.xml?
I think for a release, yes.. we should take the effort and specify the snapshot number.
I'm confused, and want to make sure we're not just talking past each other accidentally. For a release, we don't use snapshots anyway, right? We'd generate a set of jars all with the release version number in the filename.
Not sure why you think we would not use snapshots. For example, if we were releasing M4, it would have to ship with a SNAPSHOT of activemq 3.0 since it's not ready to be released yet. We would generate numbered snapshot using the svn revision number of the activemq sources.
Ah - of other stuff. I figured there was something missing.
Interesting question. Could we ask ActiveMQ to do a ActiveMQ-3.0-pre-alpha-don'tuse.jar (or whatever they wanted to call it)? yes, that would be a snapshot, but since it better be a functional snapshot (rather than somewhat random), couldn't that be a milestone release from ActiveMQ if we asked really, really nicely?
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
