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

[Rob Cernich]

Maybe I've missed something in this whole discussion, but isn't a version of Locus simply a collection of specific versions of various OSGi-fied plugins?  If so, a version of Locus is simply a version in a pom (that creates Locus), a tag in source control, some text in a p2 repository and a path segment in a URL.  If it is that simple, can't we just mirror what's already out there to a different folder and everybody can simply update their Locus references to point to the new URL?

----- Original Message -----
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>