<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/25/2013 05:32 PM, Nick Boldt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51507C1D.20801@redhat.com" type="cite">Then we
should coordinate the changes better. Your addition of Jetty (to
Alpha2) happened a week before I started on the move to Kepler M6.
Had they all happened the same day, then yes, they would have all
been part of Alpha2.
<br>
But because there was a chance someone was using Alpha2 with the
new Jetty with Kepler M5, I didn't want to break them by suddenly
changing the underlying baseline.
<br>
The last time we had a workflow where contents of the target
platform could change "at random", to use Max's favourite phrase,
Max complained every time.
<br>
</blockquote>
In my understanding SNAPSHOT means "Work in Progress/nothing
guaranteed" and includes that it can change more or less "at
random". So we can make incremental changes on the target-platform.<br>
But that's only my understanding, maybe in our context it means
something different.<br>
If we keep my definition of SNAPSHOT, the fact that Alpha2 has not
been released means that we are free to change it.<br>
The general idea of a SNAPSHOT is that we won't be able to make the
target-platform at first shot, it gives us the right to make
mistakes that we can fix easily (by fixing and respinning this
snapshot) and to make incremental changes, which will make the team
happy as different requests for TP change happen multiple times
during a dev stream.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51507C1D.20801@redhat.com" type="cite">
Now, I version them explicitly so that every substantial commit is
a new version... and ya'll complain about that too.
<br>
</blockquote>
It's better ;) But I'm wondering about the usefulness of moving to
Alpha3-SNAPSHOT when there is still an Alpha2 pending.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51507C1D.20801@redhat.com" type="cite">In the
grand scheme of things, wouldn't you rather have snapshots you can
ignore (Alpha2, than snapshots that no longer exist because they
were overwritten?
<br>
</blockquote>
What is the benefit? This is going to lead us to have one version
for each TP revision. We already have revisions to track atomic
changes, I'm not sure we need something as fine-grained for public
Maven versuins. Also, your proposal about more TP versions (with
some ignored) will imply more maintenance effort to switch from a TP
to another. We (ie you and me) won't like it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51507C1D.20801@redhat.com" type="cite">
IMHO it's *more confusing* if you're building one day with Alpha2
and it works (because Kepler M5) and the next day it stops working
(because Kepler M6), than if you discover an email saying "want to
use Kepler M6? Grab the Alpha3 version of the target platform."
<br>
</blockquote>
If you're using one day Alpha2<b>-SNAPSHOT</b> and it works means
that there will be some changes that may break you. So we make
master use SNAPSHOT, and make changes on SNAPSHOT, and if we do
something wrong, people will see it, us included.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mickael Istria<br>
Eclipse developer at <a href="http://www.jboss.org/tools">JBoss,
by Red Hat</a><br>
<a href="http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com">My blog</a> - <a
href="http://twitter.com/mickaelistria">My Tweets</a></div>
</body>
</html>