And that's why I still have the opinion that we cannot do other than release all three at the same time.
Scenario: 1. We release commons-1.1.2 + core 1.1.2 (core 1.1.2 depends on commons-1.1.2) 2. days go by... 3. We release commons-1.1.3 (because there where significant changes) + tomahawk 1.1.3 (which depends on commons-1.1.3) So, there are now the following official releases out there: commons-1.1.2 commons-1.1.3 core-1.1.2 tomahawk-1.1.3 User "happy" starts his brandnew Maven project "unlucky", decides to use the latest stable releases of everything and defines the following dependencies: XY depends on myfaces-api 1.1.2 (scope compile) XY depends on myfaces-impl 1.1.2 (scope runtime) XY depends on tomahawk 1.1.3 (scope compile) Now he builds the WAR. Guess what he ends up with? WEB-INF/lib/myfaces-api-1.1.2.jar WEB-INF/lib/myfaces-commons-1.1.2.jar WEB-INF/lib/myfaces-commons-1.1.3.jar WEB-INF/lib/myfaces-impl-1.1.2.jar WEB-INF/lib/myfaces-tomahawk-1.1.3.jar Not good! Ergo: We must release all 3 modules in sync. Manfred On 2/17/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And at some future point, we'll probably also incorporate a > > "repackaging" step into one of these (I'd suggest core, probably) to > > give the two commons versions different namespaces. > > That's what I'm attracted at more and more, too. ;-) > > Manfred >
