this is blocked by the fact we rely on geronimo spec jar: org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-el_2.2_spec:1.0.5-SNAPSHOT org.apache.geronimo-validation_1.1_spec:1.0 org.apache.geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec:1.0 org.apache.geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec:1.0 org.apache.geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec:1.0.MR2
I'll ask G if they can release them Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > updated to 1.1.0-alpha-SNAPSHOT > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2013/11/20 Albert Lee <[email protected]>: >> I agree. It would be nice to keep the implementation version same as the >> spec version. >> >> However I also understand in some particular scenario, semantics versioning >> is required that cause deviation from this naming scheme. >> >> >> Albert. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x >>> versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces, >>> in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it >>> quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find >>> a group consensus on this issue in any case. >>> >>> br, >>> Matt >>> On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi >>> > >>> > Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval >>> > 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow? >>> > >>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>> > Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Albert Lee.
