Seems that we need a unique plugin repo for each release, given how we
now build plugins based on the content in pom.xml instead of supplying a
separate plugin file.... Maybe there are some additional
car-maven-plugin enhancements needed, so you can define a range or that
any sever release is supported by the plugin/car being built. Or maybe
as David Jencks has suggested elsewhere, we need to setup the
artifact_aliases.properties in each server release to alias prior
releases (like 2.1 and 2.1.1) to the current release (which would be
2.1.2 for the next release.)
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> I've got some questions (and possibly some issues) with the plugin
> repository for Geronimo 2.1.1. I went out there attempting to update
> the plugin catalog after the release of 2.1.1 (as I had done after 2.1
> was released). However, I hit some issues and have some questions:
>
> 1) I learned too late that the download plugin repository list should
> have been changed before we cut the release if we wanted the unique
> catalog for 2.1.1 plugins to be the default (specified in
> framework/configs/plugin/pom.xml). As it stands now, the default plugin
> catalog for Geronimo 2.1.1 is pointing to the catalog for Geronimo 2.1.
>
> 2) Perhaps sharing the plugin catalog is the correct thing. I'm really
> not sure if that is best (or even possible). Can we have one catalog
> support multiple Geronimo releases? ... I would presume we could. Is
> that what people were assuming or is the assumption a catalog per release?
>
> 3) Assuming we should have our own catalog for G 2.1.1 .... I created
> one and put it under out there under
> geronimo/site/trunk/docs/plugins/geronimo-2.1.1/. Naturally, you must
> manually add the catalog for 2.1.1 since the default wasn't updated
> prior to the release.
>
> 4) The catalog from #3 seems to work but I think I need to update some
> of the plugins (esp. samples) so that they are supported on Geronimo
> 2.1.1. So it appears that regardless of if we have shared or unique
> catalogs among releases we will need to update the plugins to support
> the newer releases if they are shared. Is that correct? (I
> specifically attempted to install the 2.1-SNAPSHOT jsp sample which
> failed in 2.1.1 due to missing 2.1 dependencies).
>
>
> I was a bit thrown off by all of this since we didn't have to make the
> same change for the download list when Geronimo 2.1 was released even
> though we did update the catalog. This was because the version of the
> catalog was already specified as 2.1 even while the server itself was
> still 2.1-SNAPSHOT. I wonder if it is wise to have the catalog listed
> as if released even when the dependent server (and plugins) are not.
> BTW, this is also the current case for Geronimo 2.2 and it's catalog.
> Thoughts?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
smime.p7s (4K) 