Comments inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:07 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Who should use SNAPSHOT when? RE: The Future of the Release > Process. > > Hi, > > If I understand correctly, the problem is that a 'staged' release still > contains a SNAPSHOT keyword in the metadata/filename?
Yes, that's the problem. [Even the filename is a problem when you know the files will be installed in the context of a larger assembly installed on end-users' desktops. More generally, I think, most professional closed source ISVs have it as a requirement that you can't go around renaming libraries right before you release your software; if they don't make this a requirement, IMO they should.] > Also, how would you see snapshot 'releases' without a snapshot keyword? > If there's no indicator (timestamp?) in the filename, you'll overwrite the > previous deployed versions, which is bad. You keep them in separate directories. http://darkforge.blogspot.com/2006/12/compass-as-compared-with-mavens.ht ml The most important change I suggest here is to modify the way we "deploy" builds to include a "build number" directory in the repository layout; every deployed artifact (even released artifact) would be in its own build number directory, so they would never clobber each other. The official "release vote" would be to vote on promoting a particular build number to a release. > Personally I'm pro release-candidate marking of artifacts. I don't have an opinion about release-candidate marking in *general*, but it should be at least possible to have a release process in Maven that doesn't "mark" release candidates at all (even in the filename). > What if maven understood the difference between the version in the pom > and the version in the filename? Whatever comes of this discussion, I hope it emerges that the point you raise here is an essential part of the answer: some part of what you might conventionally call the "version number" (whether that's a timestamp, build number, or the release status) needs to not appear in the POM, even (especially) for released binaries. -Dan _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
