+1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x)
dennis said: 1.1 -> 1.1.x, 1.2 -> 1.2.x I think 1.1 -> 1.x.y 1.2 -> 2.x.y is the better one...
--Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the > MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been > before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a > pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x > > > JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x > > > > I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. > > > > 1.1 -> 1.1.x, > > 1.2 -> 1.2.x > > > > > Paul Spencer > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > we sould do the same for core > > > > > > > > next is 1.5.0 > > > > > > > > and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 > > > > > > > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > >> 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. > > > >> You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not "match" the 1.1.5 of > > > >> current core? > > > >> I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of > > > >> Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? > > > >> > > > >> --Manfred > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, > > then > > > >> > how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? > > > >> > > > > >> > This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently > > > >> of MyFaces. > > > >> > > > > >> > Paul Spencer > > > >> > > > > >> > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > > >> > > slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get > > > >> out of > > > >> > > sync. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > regards, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Martin > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> Ok, thanks for your feedback. > > > >> > >> Branch 1.1.5 created. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> --Manfred > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. > > > >> > >> > > We must decide between > > > >> > >> > > - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core > > > >> 1.1.4 and > > > >> > >> > > therefore might confuse users > > > >> > >> > > - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a > > > >> > >> tomahawk > > > >> > >> > > 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be > > > >> compatible with > > > >> > >> > Core 1.1.5. > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks > > > >> "what > > > >> > >> > happened" to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version > > > >> numbers > > > >> > >> > in their public release series.) > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -- > > > >> > >> > Wendy > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dennis Byrne > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
