Re: [jbosstools-dev] How should we deal with components of projects which have not changed since JBT 4.1.0.Final (eg., jbosstools-base/runtime) ?

On 09/27/2013 06:10 PM, Nick Boldt wrote: I don't find it very easy to deal with picked dependencies on the producer's side. Choosing dependencies is IMO a responsibility of the consumer (JBT aggregator). I tend to agree with Denis when he says that this should be something set in aggregator. We should ask component leads which version of the feature has to be aggregated (last build from branch, or last release?). However, that also shows that all versions should be bumped after a release, and this should be component's developer responsibility: when you have x.y.z released, then immediate next commit is to move to x.y.z+1 or x.y+1.0. Preparing versions for next stream is the last step of a release, not the first of the next release, so it should be done immediatly to prevent such issues. If we do that, then we can filter using version ranges in our aggregator category.xml, which seems to be a very good trade-off between control and flexibility. The idea of a per-feature filtering is good, but as explained above, I'm not sure that component's category.xml are the right place to deal with it. It appears that this use-case is covered by Tycho baseline replacement mechanism. This mechanism currently can't work for us until we have reproducible qualifiers (which I don't like). FYI, I've been investigating/coding around the following Tycho bug: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=417514 . It's an improvement of the baseline mechanism which wouldn't require reproducible qualifiers. It's not an easy one, so I can't promise we'll get results there, but I wish I could find something to put in Tycho 0.19 on this topic. -- 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>