commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: [jelly] commons-jelly-SNAPSHOT.jar on ibilio is old ?
Date Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:48:50 GMT
(continuing the trend of answering two messages in one :)

> Sigh, we really suffer with this misnomer over and over again. In Maven 
> "SNAPSHOT" is just a reference to the latest version of an artifact. So, 
> yes, "SNAPSHOT's" are allowed in the ASF repository. What are not 
> allowed are daily or interim builds (which are what people are mistaking 
> "SNAPSHOT" to mean, these go into the developer repo at 

At the moment, a SNAPSHOT link is not updated for releases generally, so I think
it is safer to not keep them in the ASF repository to avoid confusion.
Generally, if you are only interested in releases you will specify the actual
release name. If you are interested in SNAPSHOTs, you'll be interested in
something newer than the last release.

> > Well, I'm worried about others receiving jelly, having downloaded  
> > maven... trying to build and run a demo (say "maven demo:swing" in  
> > jelly/jelly-tags/swing)... and getting something as bad as a missing  
> > method because the snapshot was downloaded from ibiblio and is deadly 
> old.

I didn't understand this. Why does someone receive jelly, having downloaded
maven, attempt to run a demo in the Jelly checkout?

Anyway, as you mention later, updating maven.repo.remote in the tag libraries
project properties, or updating the project descriptor to reference the release
that it requires is the right thing to do here.

> Yes, old snapshots are a problem, jelly releasing versions should be 
> kept up with the Maven versions, It makes sense that when a release of 
> maven occurs it should use the published versions of its dependencies. 

I assume this is now referring to Maven 1.0 using a timestamped version of
Jelly? We might as well rename that timestamp beta-X as it became semi official
by our use. However, the latest beta of Jelly at the time was not working with
Maven and not worth the risk to include, and the prior beta was much older.

Maven's HEAD now uses Jelly beta-4 and will use 1.0 when it is out. Most if not
all of the snapshot dependencies have been removed.

> I suspect that this makes sense for gump as long as interim releases are 
> only being used by gump and not by releases. If the Maven build is 
> dependent on an interim release of jelly and it does a release, 
> shouldn't jelly do a release as well to make sure that the appropriate 
> version is used in the release.

I think this is unlikely to happen again, but yes - Maven now being up to date
with Jelly's CVS would push for a release if dependant on any interim release.

- Brett

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message