OK, after the lengthy discussion yesterday, it is obvious that there
are valid use cases for both versioning approaches. So here's an idea:
why don't we just do both? Our Incubator release artifact could
include the JARs without version numbers (as we're currently doing),
and we could package an another release suitable for "Mavenization".
This additional release would follow Maven's naming conventions and
would only contain what is necessary for publication via Maven - in
other words, it wouldn't need to be a complete distribution (unless
Maven requires that, which I'm assuming it doesn't). It should be very
simple to add a "maven" target to our Ant script to produce this
deliverable.
What do others think?
Greg
On Mar 28, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Greg Brown wrote:
I'm not especially familiar with Maven - does it actually enforce
that you include the version number in the JAR file name, or simply
the names of the artifacts you publish? Put another way - is Maven
specifically a JAR repository, or is it more general than that?
On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:43 PM, Todd Volkert wrote:
- Maven requires you to put the version in your jar file name.
They enforce
this for the obvious reason: you are 99% sure which version you
are running
and whether or not you might need to upgrade to a new version if
one is
available. The 'only-directory contains a version number' is
flawed because
I can still drop in any version of a pivot jar without even
knowing that the
wrong version is in place.
If we launch an apache release without version numbers in the JAR
files, does that then preclude us from deploying the 1.1 release
through Maven?
