Yes, true. I should have said: "And that's why I still have the opinion that we cannot do other than release all three at the same time - as soon as we release a new commons version." Thanks for pointing this out, Bruno.
Manfred On 2/17/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > >
