Sounds great. I'll open a JIRA. Thanks! -Jeremy On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, > I don't think there's any argument about the artifactId of > geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec and version of 1.0-EA-SNAPSHOT for the new work, so as > soon as you supply a patch I can apply it and push a snapshot. I have no > objection to the other ideas but they won't make any immediate difference to > anything. I thought we could wait a bit for other comments. > > If you open a geronimo jira and assign it to me for patches I'll be > reminded on each new patch :-) > > thanks > david jencks > > On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote: > > Any news on this item? Does my last suggestion seem reasonable/doable? > We'd like to begin making the 2.0 spec updates and get an artifact > published to the maven repo asap. > -Jeremy > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to >> handle commits. >> The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation >> of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but >> may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 >> spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to >> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. >> -Jeremy >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! >>> >>> At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle >>> snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. >>> See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know >>> about ;) >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html >>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ >>> >>> >>> --- Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: >>> >>> > Von: Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 >>> > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dev@geronimo.apache.org >>> > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 >>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>> > > >>> > > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: >>> > >> >>> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the >>> > jpa 1.0 spec >>> > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I >>> > gave it a spec >>> > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about >>> > what to do >>> > >>> about this would be appreciated. >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Do we really need to change anything? >>> > >> >>> > >> Imho the current >>> > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec >>> > >> with a >>> > >> <version> 1.0 >>> > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it >>> > doesn't hinder us ;) >>> > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we >>> > do not have any problem >>> > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the >>> > groupId since this references EJB >>> > >> and not JPA. >>> > >> >>> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use >>> > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version> >>> > >> and we're done. >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > Yes, this would be the thing to do. >>> > > >>> > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which >>> > had gotten to the 3.0 >>> > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. >>> > > >>> > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public >>> > Review Draft stage) >>> > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT >>> > seems completely >>> > > correct. >>> > > >>> > > So even though it's confusing because of the >>> > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec >>> > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more >>> > if we change the artifact >>> > > id or group id (again). >>> > > >>> > >>> > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that >>> > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec >>> > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo >>> > specs though. I have >>> > no strong feelings either way though. >>> > >>> > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so >>> > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or >>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec >>> > finalizes >>> > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. >>> > >>> > -mike >>> > >>> > >>> > > Craig >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is >>> > the fact, that there are 2 >>> > >> specs online: >>> > >> >>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ >>> > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ >>> > >> >>> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, >>> > and this doesn't contain the >>> > >> jpa spec anyway. >>> > >> >>> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me >>> > (I'm not a geronimized one)? >>> > >> >>> > >> txs and LieGrue, >>> > >> strub >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > Craig L Russell >>> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System >>> > http://db.apache.org/jdo >>> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>> > > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
