I definately agree that keeping version numbers in sync would make things easier.
For some reason Tap takes a lot of flack on the versioning of it. Could be a compliment if that's the only gripe :P But I agree, the versioning is chaotic. Why not adapt a linux-esque system... even numbers stable and a "release", odd are bleeding/test. -Greg -----Original Message----- From: D&J Gredler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: [OT] [T5] tapestry project structure I've wondered about this, too. I think there are benefits to the modular design even if the version numbers are kept in sync -- in fact, I think keeping the version numbers in sync makes it easier for users to decide what bits they need, since the decision is based only on required functionality, and not on transitive dependency concerns. When you say that Eclipse can't handle the nested structure, do you mean the maven2 plugin? On 3/14/07, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is more compatible with Eclipse; Eclipse can't handle a nested > project structure. > > In addition, I expect that the release numbers of some of the > sub-projects will "decouple". > > That is, tapestry-spring may become stable at, say, 5.0.4 and we'll > leave it alone as we rev tapestry-core up to, say, 5.0.9. > > Anyway, that's the theory. The practice is looking a little > different, because of JIRA. Having just TAPESTRY as the issue tracker > key limits the ability to meaningfully track version numbers across > the components (such as tapestry-core). > > One option would be to start creating sub-projects within the Tapestry > category (currently, there's just the TAPESTRY project), so that each > could track its bugs itself. > > Another option would be to re-organize it, as you mentioned, with > tapestry5/trunk/tapestry-xxx and tapestry/tags/tapestry-xxx ... that > would certainly make things easier when creating a new release (much > less tagging!). > > SVN does let us change our mind after the fact, to a large degree. > > > On 3/14/07, Dan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I noticed in the tapestry sources that while it's a multi-module maven > > project, all of the modules are at the same level in the source tree and > > each have their own set of branches/tags/trunk folders rather than > > having each module contained within it's parent module. What have you > > found to be the advantages of this? How does having each in a separate > > folder effect doing releases? Do you keep the version numbers in sync? > > Thanks. :) > > > > -- > > Dan Adams > > Senior Software Engineer > > Interactive Factory > > 617.235.5857 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > TWD Consulting, Inc. > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant > Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry > Creator, Apache HiveMind > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
