At 10:21 6/5/01 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >Versioning : Currently, the version scheme is this :
>> >
>> ><major>.<minor>-<modifier>
>>
>> I would still go with
>> <name>-<flavour>.<major>.<minor>.<pathlevel>
>>
>> as was discussed a few days back re commons component versioning. "flavour"
>> basically allows you to do things like have "nodebug" or "opt" versions (or
>> jdk1_2 vs jdk1_1 for collections packages).
>
>that's cool, I suppose. Currently it's a duple : <package> +
><major>.<minor>-<modifier> so doing it your way would make it clearer
>that things are associated.
>
>What is <pathlevel>?
a typo ;) It was meant to be patchlevel ;)
Think it of internal changes to component that has zero effect on code
using jar of patchlevel or below.
Major versions == no backwards compatability
Minor versions == mostly forwards compatible ("mostly" defined by developers)
Patchlevel versions == always forwardly comptible
So for instance changes to indicate a bump in patchlevel could be:
* documentation update
* forward compatible class change (as defined by JLS spec IIRC)
* new classes added to jar
>One of the current repository info warts is handling something like
>jaxp, where there are three parts, jaxp.jar, crimson.jar, and
>parser.jar. So right now, it's listed as three packages, with
>dependency information :
>
>packages = jaxp, jaxp-parser, jaxp-crimson
>...
>jaxp.dependencies = jaxp-parser, jaxp-crimson
>...
I would do it like
packages = jaxp1.0, jaxp1.1, jaxp-parser, jaxp-crimson
...
jaxp1.0.dependencies = jaxp-parser
jaxp1.1.dependencies = jaxp-crimson
>> >The version and package information is kept in the manifest, in what is
>> >probably the wrong way :
>> >
>> >Implementation-Title: <packagename>
>> >Implementation-Version: <version>
>>
>> +1
>
>Really? I wasn't sure if it was cool. The documentation in this area
>seems a bit spare.
No idea if it is correct - like the idea though ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
