as of now, I am also fine with a 1.2.2; but I really noticed not a common agreement on using 1.2.2
IMO the 1.2.1 would be updated, by maven. (unless you run in offline mode, which is totally broken anyway) -Matthias On Jan 21, 2008 2:00 PM, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am all for 1.2.2 - if someone downloaded the 1.2.1, he'll be confused - > releasing 1.2.2, we spare everyone the potential confusion. It is highly > normal to skip a point-release, that's really not a problem, I would think. > > I thought that was already the outcome of the discussion on the dev-list, as > I understood it. > > regards, > > Martin > > > > On Jan 21, 2008 10:31 PM, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Because artifacts where published, even if that was not the intent, the > > version number should be consider used. > > > > Paul Spencer > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 2008 1:08 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> If something was publicly released as 1.2.1 already, then -- even if > > >> it was pulled -- please do not release 1.2.1 again. > > > > > > it wasn't released. Just the impl jars made it to public repo. > > > which is (from the effect) close to a release ;-) > > > > > > -M > > > > > >> Skipping a version number might cause some questions on the list. > > >> However, reusing a version number will result in the end user not > > >> knowing if they have the "good version" or the "bad version", nor will > > >> anyone who tries to help them debug issues. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jan 21, 2008 4:00 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> So we agree on 1.2.2? > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
