[jbosstools-dev] [Soa-tools-list] Locus 1.1.0 is released

[Nick Boldt]

Since the change we're proposing is really a non-change (just cosmetic 
alterations), why not 1.1.1.Final (maintenance) or even 1.1.0.1.Final 
(trivial maintenance)?

1.2.0 suggests "we actually did something new" not "due to the limits of 
Nexus / Maven we are required to bump the version simply to adhere to 
versioning conventions that state we should have '.Final' as the 
qualifier on a release even though there's no actual IU in the site 
which contains this version, so it's entirely just a label".

The more I think about this, the more the idea of having to respin 
simply for a cosmetic alteration seems pointless. Bumping the version 
means I'll have to push new bits onto download.jboss.org AND JBTIS will 
have to (again) update their TP references in order to pull down *the 
identical bits*. That's a lot of cascading work for a purely cosmetic 
change.

So, other than the fact that the site doesn't have .Final in Nexus, and 
it says "Nightly" instead of "Stable", do we *REALLY* need to bother?

Surely these are trivial problems we can fix in concert with some ACTUAL 
fixes or new content in Locus, for the 1.2 release in the far-flung future.

WDYT?

On 10/22/2013 10:59 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
> On 10/22/2013 03:32 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>> -1 for fake commits just to bump the timestamp. A rebuild should
>> change nothing but the build ID (build timestamp + build number).
> I'm ok with that.
>> +1 for re-releasing the bits as 1.1.0.Final, with the corrected
>> index.html ("Stable Release" not "Nightly Build")
> What about 1.2.0.Final? I've already made 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT follow 1.1.0 so
> 1.2.0.Final would be easier.
> --
> Mickael Istria
> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools>
> My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets
> <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>

-- 
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com