On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > +1 for number 2 also. > > i expect a 1.2 version of a lib as a compatible improvement of a 1.1 > version and even maven does this when building. > > If no objections I'll change the artifact names and version for release commons again (since new artifacts should be created, a new vote is emailed too). > > Regards, > Volker > > > > 2008/9/5 Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi > > > > On a previous discussion (please see): > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/-myfaces-commons--discussion-about-reorganization-of-this-project-is-required!-td17692039.html<http://www.nabble.com/-myfaces-commons--discussion-about-reorganization-of-this-project-is-required%21-td17692039.html> > > > > It was proposed to have a layout following tomahawk way (jsf 1.1 and jsf > 1.2 > > living on the same trunk but having diferent artifact names for jsf 1.1 > and > > 1.2 compatible versions). > > > > The reorganization was rejected, so I do not attempt to discuss it > anymore. > > > > But It seems that the way of name the artifacts and put the version is > not > > clear, so we need to ask the community about it. > > > > There are two proposals: > > > > 1. Diferentiate versions using the two first digits and using the same > > artifactId. This is what is right now. Example: > > > > JSF 1.1 > > > > myfaces-commons-utils-1.1.0 > > myfaces-converters-1.1.0 > > myfaces-validators-1.1.0 > > > > JSF 1.2 > > > > myfaces-commons-utils-1.2.0 > > myfaces-converters-1.2.0 > > myfaces-validators-1.2.0 > > > > Trinidad uses this way to handle it > > > > 2. change the artifactId adding something to identify the version. > Example: > > > > JSF 1.1 > > > > myfaces-commons-utils11-1.0.0 > > myfaces-converters11-1.0.0 > > myfaces-validators11-1.0.0 > > > > JSF 1.2 > > > > myfaces-commons-utils12-1.0.0 > > myfaces-converters12-1.0.0 > > myfaces-validators12-1.0.0 > > > > tomahawk use this way (it has tomahawk and tomahawk12 as artifact id to > > separate versions, but follows a same release cycle and version number) > > > > Suggestions are welcome. > > > > My humble opinion is +1 for number 2 (that's one thing that I wanted on > the > > previous discussion, inclusive if this is true have all code on the same > > place like tomahawk). > > > > regards > > > > Leonardo Uribe > > > > > > -- > inexso - information exchange solutions GmbH > Bismarckstraße 13 | 26122 Oldenburg > Tel.: +49 441 4082 356 | > FAX: +49 441 4082 355 | www.inexso.de >
