Hi,
As an adopter, option #3 will cause us difficulties since we need to consume m2e-wtp (and pre-reqs) from a single p2 repository. Option #2 just doesn’t sound like the right thing to do. So my vote would be for option #1.
- Ian
From: Fred Bricon [mailto:fbricon@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:56 AM
To: M2E-WTP Developers mailing list
Cc: Wayne Beaton
Subject: [m2e-wtp-dev] m2e-wtp RC1 and the mavenarchiver issue
Hi,
I was fairly confident in releasing m2e-wtp 0.16.0 RC1 tomorrow until a user reported an incompatibility between mavenarchiver 0.15.0.201109290002,
(which is added to m2e-wtp's update site) and m2e 1.2, which is about to be released : mavenarchiver declares an m2e dependency with a range of [1.0.0, 1.2.0)
I didn't see the problem earlier because my local environment already uses mavenarchiver 0.15.0.201207090125 and m2e 1.2, while the CI builds compile m2e-wtp against m2e 1.1.
I created CQ 6501 so we can publish the proper mavenarchiver version but, even though it's priority was bumped to P2, I don't know when it's gonna be approved (for the record, it's the same code between the 2 versions, only difference is the m2e requirements changed to [1.0.0, 2.0.0)) and it will probably not be ready for tomorrow (I'd love to be proved wrong).
We initially wanted to release on Aug 22nd to be on par with the Juno SR1/Kepler release train but since m2e-wtp is not actually part of the release train, I hope it's not a big deal if we slip a few days behind.
So, here are the options :
1 - we hold the RC1 release till we get approval to publish mavenarchiver 0.15.0.201207090125
2 - we release RC1 tomorrow with mavenarchiver 0.15.0.201207090125 before we get approval (cause I'm a rebel you know :-)) and remove it if we get caught by Wayne or it's not approved eventually.
I'm 50-50 on #1 and #3. What do you think?
I was also planning on doing a dev call this week but I'm still waiting to get a new conf #.
--
"Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd