On 1/17/02 2:23 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/17/02 6:07 AM, "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Either the daily snapshot has a date on it like what is being produced so >> people can distinguish and or call it torque.jar and place the information >> in the manifest. > > -1 on manifest because there are no JDK tools to manage the manifest. What do you mean by manage the manifest? Jar and the <jar> tasks do this quite nicely. Developer's manage the versioning whether it be in the name of the jar or the manifest. > The date isn't enough. It would need to include a build number. I have made > several changes to a .jar file on a single date. For nightly builds a procedure like what Cactus does can be done, if the regression tests pass (which we are starting to get) then a minor release can be done. I don�t follow the "made several changes in a day" thing. If you make 10 changes and they are all backward compatible then what does way you handle versioning matter. >> And right now the auto jar uploader works with timestamps >> so if we change torque, and upload a new jar to the repository then it will >> come down the next time people try to update. > > Torque is under development. What if there is a non-backward compatible > change? I don't see what this has to do with whether the versioning was in the name of the jar or in the manifest? If the build system can distinguish version by the name or by a manifest don't you have a problem either way. I'm not saying the manifest is the grand solution but I don't just want to rule it out completely. I've never had a big problem with version numbers but I've never really had problem with the versioning being in the manifest, and in most cases its easier just to drop in the new jar when it doesn't have the version name in it. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Right now where we are using a single directory and explicit naming in our build files things work. But a lib.repo might be easier to navigate if it were separated by product much like CPAN. I know you like versions in the names of the JARs but please don't be too hasty in dismissing possible solutions. I think the goals are safety and ease of use, if the details are transparent to users and developers does it really matter where the versioning occurs? > -jon > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
