+1 Arnaud
On 3/3/07, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2007, at 8:47 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > It'd be good to have the tool that checks for API changes between > versions in the parent pom. We could try using Clirr for this. The strategy could be something like http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/ think_tank.html#001324_ensuring_binary_compatibility -Vincent > > I agree with John in pushing towards final releases, I already said > several times that all these alpha/betas are an excuse to make > dramatic changes while we are actually using them as final. > > my 0.02 EUR ;) > > On 2/22/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How do you mean? What else is there to be concerned about WRT >> backward >> compat? >> >> BTW, I don't think dropping the method entirely is a good course of >> action...but we do need to adjust the code to accommodate wagon >> providers >> that don't have it. >> >> I think the wagon API is probably stable enough to talk about >> putting out >> 1.0-final, and then proceed with 1.1-snap development, actually. I >> don't >> want to stop forward progress, I just want to make sure we don't >> get burned. >> If I caught this particular problem when trying to do a deploy using >> wagon-webdav, who else would see it? Let's just fix this, and >> think about >> how we can setup a couple simple tests for backward compat. I can >> whip up an >> integration test project in 3 minutes to test this one...I'll log >> the jira >> for it now. >> >> -john >> >> On 2/22/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > The Wagon.getProtocol() method could probably be dropped. >> > But that won't address the bigger concern. Backwards >> compatibility. >> > >> > - Joakim >> > >> > John Casey wrote: >> > > Also, to be clear, in the past I've broken things massively in >> Maven and >> > > other places. Almost without fail, someone has tracked me >> down, and >> > > waited >> > > while I stopped everything I was doing, and fixed the >> problem...with >> > > tests, >> > > if possible. >> > > >> > > On 2/22/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Just to be clear - did I miss a volley of emails on these >> topics? >> > >> >> > >> -j >> > >> >> > >> On 2/22/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > The changes to wagon are ... (just to make sure they show >> in john's >> > >> > gmail account) >> > >> > >> > >> > 1) Timeouts >> > >> > 2) Streaming Wagon >> > >> > 3) Limited Transactions >> > >> > >> > >> > - Joakim >> > >> > >> > >> > John Casey wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I have something to point out that I think the entire Maven >> > >> > development >> > >> > > community needs to hear. I've been doing a lot of work >> recently >> > with >> > >> > > Maven >> > >> > > trunk, so I notice any (perhaps inevitable) instability >> that comes >> > >> > > down the >> > >> > > pike from dependency APIs. Recently, I've been having a >> LOT of >> > >> trouble >> > >> > in >> > >> > > this area. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Particularly in the Wagon API. It seems that a change was >> rolled >> > >> into >> > >> > > wagon-provider-api around the beginning of February that >> introduced >> > >> > > some new >> > >> > > methods into the Wagon interface. This is not in itself a >> problem, >> > >> > even >> > >> > > though the current code version is at 1.0-*beta*-3- >> SNAPSHOT. What >> > >> > > causes an >> > >> > > issue is the fact that these new methods are then assumed >> to be in >> > >> > > place by >> > >> > > the new DefaultWagonManager, effectively breaking that >> manager's >> > >> > backward >> > >> > > compatibility with previous releases of Wagon providers. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I tracked all of this down over the course of the past >> few days, in >> > >> > > between >> > >> > > doing the things that I'm actually focused on doing. I >> can fix this >> > >> > one >> > >> > > problem by myself; I'm not pleading for help here. >> However, I >> > cannot >> > >> > > act as >> > >> > > the gatekeeper for all APIs that get used in Maven trunk, >> to ensure >> > >> > their >> > >> > > stability and backward compatibility. I've been informed >> that there >> > >> > > are many >> > >> > > other such changes heading for Wagon...interestingly >> enough, a >> > quick >> > >> > > search >> > >> > > of my GMail account doesn't turn up any discussion of >> these changes >> > >> > > (unless >> > >> > > it's buried in the deep past somewhere). >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I know that this email can look a bit hypocritical on its >> face, >> > >> but I >> > >> > > really >> > >> > > do feel that we owe it to our user base to be a little more >> > >> proactive >> > >> > in >> > >> > > ensuring backward compatibility than we have in the past. I >> > >> understand >> > >> > >> > >> > > that >> > >> > > many Maven developers are on various deadlines, but those >> > >> deadlines do >> > >> > > not >> > >> > > originate in the Maven ASF project, and shouldn't cause >> undue >> > >> harm to >> > >> > the >> > >> > > community or its code. I'm not trying to say we need to >> rigidly >> > >> adopt >> > >> > and >> > >> > > conform to some process or other, but we each >> individually need to >> > >> > take >> > >> > > responsibility for discussing and testing any major >> changes we >> > >> plan to >> > >> > > put >> > >> > > into Maven or its dependencies. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > IMHO, pushing new features into a beta API is irresponsible >> > >> unless you >> > >> > > can >> > >> > > be ABSOLUTELY certain it will not impact backward >> compatibility. In >> > >> > these >> > >> > > cases, it is my understanding that the normal practice is to >> > >> create a >> > >> > > final >> > >> > > release of the existing API, and then push these bigger >> changes >> > into >> > >> > the >> > >> > > next version. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > If there's even a shadow of doubt about what effect a >> change will >> > >> have >> > >> > on >> > >> > > the user community, we need to make a serious effort to >> start a >> > >> > > discussion >> > >> > > about it on this list. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Regards, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > John >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > > > -- > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > -- The Princess Bride > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
