Maybe releasing commons implies releasing core and also tomahawk, but releasing tomahawk, for instance, does not imply having to release commons if there has not been changing in commons. Commons should have longer release cycles than the other modules,
Bruno On 2/17/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <[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. > > > > What do you mean by this? > > It's what we've talked about before. > > core depending on org.myfaces.core.commons (maybe core-commons.jar) > and tomahawk depending on org.myfaces.commons (maybe > tomahawk-commons.jar). > > Thus, it's possible for core-commons.jar != tomahawk-commons.jar, and > core and tomahawk can be upgraded independently of each other. > > Manfred's "Scenario" message in this thread shows why it's necessary > for anyone who's forgotten. >
