Project dependecies

[eskianis]

Hello,

Its great that the projects have gone to a 2.x status, but since that
time they have been additional releases like fixes i.e. ActiveRecord
2.1.2 which in my opinion has an important fix AR-280.

Since ActiveRecord is part of other projects like
Castle.MonoRail.ActiveRecordSupport or
Castle.Facilities.ActiveRecordIntegration shouldn't these projects use
the new release of ActiveRecord?

Monorail is using 2.1.0 and ActiveRecordIntegration is using 2.0.1

How should someone like me go about this?

Since am not a committer, should i make a local branch of Monorail
2.0.0 locally, update the references of
Castle.MonoRail.ActiveRecordSupport and just have my own build and
wait for the next releases?

Same goes for ActiveRecordIntegration (even though it seems that there
is and probably will never be a release/tag for that)

The reason i am writing this, is that i believe a lot of castle users
might be facing these issues in the future since all projects are
moving independently but they are still dependent on each other, you
might get caught in a cat and mouse chase. I don't want you to think
i am complaining because i am not. I am a big fan of the work you
guys are doing and we are using castle extensively at my work.

I just wanted your advice :)

[Markus Zywitza]

Committers

Now that we have released everything, shouldn't we try to keep a
complete Castle trunk again? And if so, do we have any options other
than rolling back the binary dependencies completely?

-Markus

2010/2/9 eskianis <eski...@gmail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to castle-project-d...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>
>

[John Simons]

Actually Jono has already come up with the solution for this problem,
in this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/9c4ecb75d81c1bf7/

"the alternative is to not increment the assembly version but the
file version for hotfix/patch releases (i.e. 2.0.1, 2.0.2). Which
means that
you could just drop in a patch release without worrying about updating
dependant libraries, this then ensures the user is using compatible
versions
and allows us to fix bugs that don't break public interfaces."

Cheers
John

On Feb 12, 6:37 am, Markus Zywitza <markus.zywi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Committers
>
> Now that we have released everything, shouldn't we try to keep a
> complete Castle trunk again? And if so, do we have any options other
> than rolling back the binary dependencies completely?
>
> -Markus
>

> 2010/2/9 eskianis <eskia...@gmail.com>: