[forge-dev] plugin versioning

Paul Bakker paul.bakker.nl at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 10:00:53 EST 2012


I'll do it :-)


On Mar 8, 2012, at 15:57 , Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

> I completely agree :) never fear! This mechanism was mostly put in place to prevent horrific crash and burn scenarios where Forge would refuse to boot (failing with a terrible exception message) when a plugin was API incompatible.
> 
> I'd love to get a full plugin version system up and running. I think allowing users to select from a list is a good first step. We'll also need to enhance the loading functionality itself, slightly, in order to support loading from a version that is not an exact match, but is within the same minor version. (e.g. 1.n.x, but not 2.n.x)
> 
> Any volunteers? I think this would be a great one for someone who's interested to work on!
> 
> ~Lincoln
> 
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Rodney Russ <rruss at redhat.com> wrote:
> I would tend to prefer giving users options over "magic" and would assume that there would be a default version selected for the users that don't want to think when installing.  How would that default be chosen?
> 
> -Rodney
> 
> ----- "Paul Bakker" <paul.bakker.nl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: "Paul Bakker" <paul.bakker.nl at gmail.com>
> > To: "forge-dev List" <forge-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:50:56 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
> > Subject: [forge-dev] plugin versioning
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Yesterday during the meeting we talked about plugin versioning.
> > Currently Forge checks if there is a tag/branch of the plugin that
> > matches the Forge API version while installing. We discussed if we can
> > test on compatibility of plugins on a CI server.
> >
> > I started thinking about this again and actually think we should
> > re-think the version checking mechanism. Now that Forge is final, the
> > APIs should be stable. They should be stable until we go for a 2.0.0
> > version, which means plugins are not supposed to break on API changes
> > for 1.0.1, 1.1.0 etc. If we do that correctly, it's also not necessary
> > to upgrade plugins each time there is a new release (or be back at
> > building to snapshots which is dangerous). Instead I suggest prompting
> > available versions of plugins during plugin installation (still
> > looking at tags for that), so that a user can choose to use a stable
> > version, some beta or maybe a snapshot.  This also gives us the
> > freedom to do minor Forge releases more often without the hazzle of
> > upgrading all plugins once again…
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Paul
> > _______________________________________________
> > forge-dev mailing list
> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120308/c23d2c7d/attachment.html 


More information about the forge-dev mailing list