[hibernate-dev] JPA API jar

[Steve Ebersole]

I do not agree with needing to see this in the artifact name.  I can see 
putting it in the metadata (pom, manifest, etc) in addition to Jira.

'draft' does in deed fit into the chronology scheme defined by JBoss.  
Except that 'draft' is not defined as a valid value.

Here is another thing to consider.  The first one I did was Draft-6 
iirc.  Whatever, it was not Draft-1 is my point.  So if I see 
'hibernate-jpa-api:2.1.0.Draft6' I immediately wonder where are 1-5.  
Same when you combine.  So say I have Draft-6 but the next release I cut 
has Drafts 7 and 8.  So I presume there you'd suggest 
'hibernate-jpa-api:2.1.0.Draft8' there right?  What happened to Draft 7?

Anyway, Andy started a conversation with other "spec api" owners to try 
and get a consensus.  I think consistency would be better.

On 07/26/2013 01:02 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 26 July 2013 18:51, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2013, at 7:26 PM, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I just released the "Final" JPA API jar.  It is still using the old
>>> naming scheme in terms of repo artifacts; so this one is:
>>>
>>> groupId : org.hibernate.javax.persistence
>>> artifactId : hibernate-jpa-2.1-api
>>> version : 1.0.0.Final
>> nice
>>
>>> I think moving forward we will move to a slightly different scheme. The
>>> group will stay the same, but:
>>>
>>> artifactId : hibernate-jpa-api
>>> version : {jpaVersion}.0.Final
>> +1 I prefer this scheme as well
> +1 it's far better as it avoids mistakes leading to conflicting
> versions on classpath
>
>>> Also, rather than naming the non-final releases after the draft they
>>> come from (because often they span Drafts or partially include Drafts,
>>> etc) we'll just go to a straight Alpha/Beta/CR scheme.
>> how do you know how many releases there are of each type and when to switch?
>> Is that an arbitrary choice? Personally I had not problems with the Draft naming
>> scheme, but if you think this is better.
> Agree with Hardy. I never needed the feature myself but I suspect it
> would useful to have an indication to which draft it's supposed to
> refer to. At the same time you might have fixes which apply on the
> same draft so I think this version could be more practical:
>
> 2.1.0-draft1-v2
>
> but making sure the "draft" part of the scheme respects alphabetical
> ordering.. I don't remember all rules but products use such a scheme
> with -redhat-v2 or v3 at the end to match a community release + some
> level of patching. Seems to work well for them.
>
>> --Hardy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev