[jbosstools-dev] Version bumps for JBT 4.1.1 / JBT 4.2

[Yahor]

Bumped jbosstools-vpe to 3.5.100 in master.


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Nick Boldt <nboldt at redhat.com> wrote:

> /me forwards this to the other list as requested
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Version bumps for JBT 7.1.0 / JBDS 8.0.0
> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 11:04:34 +0200
> From: Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse at redhat.com>
> To: Alexey Kazakov <akazakov at exadel.com>
> CC: Nick Boldt <nboldt at redhat.com>, external-exadel-list at redhat.**com<external-exadel-list at redhat.com>
>
> btw. please use jbosstools-dev for tech stuff like this - not
> external-exadel-list.
>
> /max
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:03:09PM -0700, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
>
>> OK, I got it.
>> We have changed CDI and JSF in 4.1.x since 4.1.0.Final. And we have
>> bumped CDI version (1.5.0->1.5.1) and JSF (3.5.0->3.5.1).
>> Seam has not changed since 4.1.0.Final (no code changes, no version
>> bumping) because we thought we should not bump unchanged components.
>> OK. It's not correct anymore (if it ever was) and we should bump the
>> unchanged seam component for 4.1.1.Beta1 too (3.5.0->3.5.1) because we
>> have changed and bumped CDI and JSF which are parts of the same github
>> repo.
>> I will fix it for Beta1 for seam.
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/2013 11:33 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that was the suggestion from Max yesterday.
>>>
>>> He seems to want to treat entire github repos as single entities
>>> when dealing with version bumps.
>>>
>>> So, if ANY of the subcomponents in a repo change, ALL the
>>> subcomponents should increment their .y or .z digit accordingly.
>>>
>>> In the attachments on this thread, I've assumed that the reason
>>> nothing was bumped is because nothing had changed, so that bumping
>>> from 3.5.0 to 3.5.1 and 3.5.100 was reasonable.
>>>
>>> If in fact something DID change, or WILL change before GA of JBDS
>>> 7.1 or 8.0, then perhaps 3.6.0 is a better version to use. The
>>> amount of change determines which version makes more sense, and of
>>> course you'll know that more than I will since you're committing the
>>> changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2013 02:15 PM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if we have bumped javaee (because of changes in cdi and jsf) we
>>>> should bump seam too even if it doesn't have any changes, correct?
>>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2013 11:10 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Max,
>>>>>
>>>>> I took a look a copy of the latest versionwatch report, dumped it into
>>>>> OpenOffice Calc, and cleaned out all the places where features &
>>>>> versions WERE incremented.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's left is a list of plugins and features in JBDS 7.x (4.1.x
>>>>> branch) and 8.0 (master branch) where it appears that some things
>>>>> haven't been correctly upversioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Worst offender is org.jboss.tools.vpe, where master branch is 3.5.0
>>>>> but 4.1.x branch is 3.5.1. Other IUs listed should move up too since
>>>>> their parent projects have bumped (ie., if anything in Base has
>>>>> bumped, so too should runtime and usage; if part of JavaEE has bumped,
>>>>> so too should Seam).
>>>>>
>>>>> See attached screenshot and .ods spreadsheet. I haven't opened JIRAs
>>>>> for these issues yet - wanted your +1 on them first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbosstools-dev/attachments/20131008/54f2cb14/attachment.html