Correct. I don't think it's a real problem, as users will quite quickly associate 3.0.0 osgi version to 3.0 release. And the jars will still include the 3.0 version in their file name, so I personnaly don't care.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:07 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > > I think the issue will persist for the release somehow. > > If the release is labelled 3.0, the OSGi version would still be > > 3.0.0, as afaik, > > OSGi versions always have 3 digits. > > Oh, right. Ok so this is isn't a technical issue, just a point of > potential confusion for OSGi users. Is that right? > > -David > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David Blevins > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mar 6, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> OSGi versions have a specific format. The bnd plugin (or the felix > >>>> maven plugin) transforms > >>>> the maven version to the OSGi format. > >>>> See http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4/org/osgi/framework/Version.html > >>> > >>> Thanks Guillaume. > >>> > >>> That's pretty confusing, isn't it? IOpenejb versioning scheme is > >>> 3.0-SNAPSHOT whereas people who'd run its bundles have to specify > >>> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. I think we should change the version to be > >>> 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT to make it consistent. Other ideas? > >> > >> We're almost done with the 3.0 issues, so it'll go away pretty soon > >> anyway. > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
