You could of course adopt a more contrived numbering scheme: openejb-4.0-ejb31.jar
using the maven classifiers as a way to denote which version of ejb you'd like to support. This opens up the possibility to support both ejb-3.0 and ejb 3.1 with a open ejb 4.0 release (which might introduce specific features that provide upwards compatibility to ejb 3.1), though you really don't have to do so. Just my 2cts (was triggered by the referecne to Wicket :) Martijn mnour wrote: > > Hi Jean... > > Every opinion is important in this community :) > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I don't know if my opinion is really important, but I think it's time to >> release something (some fixes are very important and the list is full). >> >> Regarding 3.0.1 vs 3.1, +1 for 3.1 ! >> >> Jean-Louis >> >> >> mnour wrote: >>> >>> IMO we will not be able to sync OEJB releases versions the specs >>> versions, because for sure we want and we do add new features to >>> satisfy the needs of better EJB development using OEJB for our users. >>> So documentation and release notices play a big role in that matter as >>> it is the way users will know which EJB version(s) we support, this is >>> beside the publicity that David talked about through whatever entity - >>> InfoQ or TSS or both or someone else. I mean, lets follow the >>> conventional versioning scheme, which is 3.x for new additions and >>> features and 3.0.x for bug fixes, cause this is the expected scheme by >>> most users, and we should not care - and we will not be able to follow >>> the specs versions. But for this specific situation and for the sake >>> of OEJB publicity , I vote for 3.1 release version as it will sound >>> better in the ears of users and InfoQ and/or TSS readers as it is so >>> related to the EJB 3.1 specs, but later we can follow our own release >>> versioning as normal. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Manu George >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm I see your point David. So I guess it makes sense to go with 3.1. >>>>>> So what do we plan to call future releases delivering EJB 3.1 >>>>>> support? >>>>>> 3.x or 4.0? >>>>> >>>>> 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so forth. >>>> >>>> Heh. But InfoQ (or whoever) might not be interested in a 3.1.2 >>>> release... >>>> Which is Manu's point, I think... Or at least it would be my point... >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> Basing decisions on headline grabbing potential seems like a poor >>>> starting >>>> point for making this decision, IMO. Heck, if 3.1 will get a notice, >>>> wouldn't a 4.0 release get a bigger headline? :-P I'll also note that >>>> TSS >>>> just ran an article for a 1.3.4 release of Wicket. >>>> >>>> IMO, the project has one fundamental decision: Do you want to base >>>> release >>>> numbers on the supported EJB spec level? The ability of the project to >>>> introduce new "features" is going to far outpace the ability of the JCP >>>> to >>>> generate new EJB spec version numbers. By convention, 3.0.1 would be a >>>> bug-fix update of the 3.0 release. New "features" do find their way >>>> into >>>> bug-fix releases, but you'd usually expect most new features to appear >>>> in >>>> 3.x releases. However, that doesn't mean you absolutely *must* follow >>>> the >>>> convention... Allowing 3.0.x releases to introduce new features. It's >>>> then a >>>> matter of communicating the content. On the other hand, a 3.x release >>>> clearly communicates new function. >>>> >>>> I'm ok with either direction. A few additional thoughts... >>>> >>>> Would be nice to discuss what users might want... Discussing releases a >>>> bit >>>> further in advance would give committers a chance to target new >>>> capabilities >>>> for them, etc... >>>> >>>> --kevan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks >>> - Mohammad Nour >>> >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19254861.html >> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks > - Mohammad Nour > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Getting-near-release-time-tp18080713p19255717.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
