I would like to ask you to think about your versioning scheme of third party code, like sUnit or GLORP.
I'll try and make my argument short...
I was looking into a problem I had with sUnit due to "missing" failure information in TestResults (I need to report test results to a Hudson Build server) - read more about this on my blog at http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/what-sunit-could-learn-from-junit/
). The answer to my problem is that sUnit should do a "back-port" of the TestFailure class from jUnit. This is not very hard, I plan to look into this over the next few days.
BUT there are a few factors that keep me from doing it in VAST (which I'll do nevertheless, because I need it there):
* There is no easy way of pushing my changes out to Squeak or VW from Envy
* I have no idea what version of sUnit ships with VA ST, so I have no idea what version to port my stuff to when I want to propose it to the sUnit project members. I can only send them source code and tell them to look how it fits into their latest version
Especially in Frameworks like GLORP or Seaside, the version of the original can be extremely important if I need to ask for help. If you look at the Seaside mailing list, one of the most frequent questions asked is "What version are you using, and on what platform". In GLORP this is currently especially bad, because the version currently shipped with VAST is about 5 years old, so if I asked questions about problems on any forum, people might have big problems understanding my problem anyways...
So I vote for a redo of versioning for third party code that is shipped with VAST. Please don't give it a Version Number that reflects the VA product version, give it the version number of the source (maybe extended with some VAST specific part, if that's really necessary for your internal buid processes).
This would also make life on/with VASTGoodies easier, because we could have ports of newer versions of the original from Squeak published there with a "real" version number (in the context of the project that produced the code).
What are other users' thoughts on this?
(You have to be a registered user and logged on to make a vote in the poll)