I don't think so. You don't have to use a single tree with a unique version. You can separate modules and release them independantly. I agree that each separate set of modules should be released at once, which is not the case currently with the specs. But we could easily split the modules in its own tree and separate them from the configs / assemblies. What's wrong with that ?
On 12/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is NOT how mvn works folks... I've been trying to explain that to you for the past weeks. You just don get it :-/ Good luck --jason -----Original Message----- From: Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:15:39 To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release process change On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: > On Dec 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> From what I understand, the problem you are focusing on >> is just a naming problem: you want the GA release to be >> named 2.0. That's fine. But it only concerns the final >> downloadables archives, right ? This is a good point. For the assemblies, from a "marketing" standpoint, we can version them any way we want. > > Nope, since mvn releases each component's artifact separately, its > not just the zip/tgz that one traditionally thinks of as the > release... its every single artifact that gets spit out of the > release. We should deal with the module versions separately from the assemblies. I'll hop back on this next week...I'm taking a few days of R & R. Cheers Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
