Hi On a previous discussion (please see):
http://www.nabble.com/-myfaces-commons--discussion-about-reorganization-of-this-project-is-required!-td17692039.html<http://www.nabble.com/-myfaces-commons--discussion-about-reorganization-of-this-project-is-required%21-td17692039.html> It was proposed to have a layout following tomahawk way (jsf 1.1 and jsf 1.2 living on the same trunk but having diferent artifact names for jsf 1.1 and 1.2 compatible versions). The reorganization was rejected, so I do not attempt to discuss it anymore. But It seems that the way of name the artifacts and put the version is not clear, so we need to ask the community about it. There are two proposals: 1. Diferentiate versions using the two first digits and using the same artifactId. This is what is right now. Example: JSF 1.1 myfaces-commons-utils-1.1.0 myfaces-converters-1.1.0 myfaces-validators-1.1.0 JSF 1.2 myfaces-commons-utils-1.2.0 myfaces-converters-1.2.0 myfaces-validators-1.2.0 Trinidad uses this way to handle it 2. change the artifactId adding something to identify the version. Example: JSF 1.1 myfaces-commons-utils11-1.0.0 myfaces-converters11-1.0.0 myfaces-validators11-1.0.0 JSF 1.2 myfaces-commons-utils12-1.0.0 myfaces-converters12-1.0.0 myfaces-validators12-1.0.0 tomahawk use this way (it has tomahawk and tomahawk12 as artifact id to separate versions, but follows a same release cycle and version number) Suggestions are welcome. My humble opinion is +1 for number 2 (that's one thing that I wanted on the previous discussion, inclusive if this is true have all code on the same place like tomahawk). regards Leonardo Uribe
