On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:41:38 +0100, Rakesh <rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A fellow (new to the team) developer was shocked we did not version
our release artefacts.
We pretty much just give the latest war file (with the same name each
time) to the infrastructure team to deploy.
Not enough information to evaluate. For instance, I've seen the following
thing done: stuff is released through Maven, so every artifact is
versioned both externally (file name) and internally (manifest) and
archived on Nexus. Then, the war file given to people for install in
production is stripped the version suffix, to facilitate deployment (no
need to touch the Tomcat configuration file to publish it with the same
context prefix; I'd personally do that, but ...). In any case, you can
anyway retrieve the version looking at the manifest (but even if the
manifest won't be there you could match it with its "master" copy in Nexus
by MD5). So, in the end, this scenario won't shock me as soon as we are
starting from versioning artifacts. The rationale is obvious to me: at
each moment you can easily proof what version is running in production, so
you can correctly match it with the change log and bug reports.
Instead, if the whole process never has a clear way to tag artefacts since
from the beginning, I'd be worried :-)
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java
Posse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
