Yeah, that thought occurred... I'm not too worried that it's the same number as JSF 2.0, but I do think it implies that we've made major changes since 1.2.2, which definitely isn't the case! I like saving major number changes for releases that break backwards compatibility.
-- Adam On 9/8/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2.0.0? > > 2.x saying that it is the 2nd major release of this tool, not that it > has anything to do with JSF 2.0. If it is indeed JSF version > independent, shouldn't matter that it gets away from 1.2.x. > > On 9/8/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've moved the Trinidad Maven Plugins to their own sub-repository. > > The codebase is really the 1.2 codeline. > > > > The question is, should the version number of the next release be: > > - 1.0.3 > > - 1.2.3 > > - Something else? > > > > I'd initially gone with 1.0.3, on the line of thought that we really were > > saying there never should have been a 1.2 line at all, since we could > > have always made sure there was only one line of plugins. > > > > Now I'm thinking that's bogus, and that we can't rewind history. :) > > So, there was a 1.2.2 release, and it's confusing to tell someone > > to "downgrade" from 1.2.2 to 1.0.3 - especially in the MyFaces 1.2 > > Core - so the version number should be 1.2.3. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- Adam > > >
