Std bval version should be ok too. If we go back to owb 1.1.3 we need to patch our lifecycle back manually.
For cxf it is a patched version so we can keep the 2.5.1. I thonk osgi module can be commented for a beta2. - Romain Le 4 janv. 2012 07:56, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:52 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Can we use timestamped snapshot as a workaround (for snapshot deps, I > mean)? > > > > We could maybe release the code ourselves like Geronimo does from time > to time. Just copy it in, update the groupIds and release it. > > Looking at our snapshots we have: > > - javaee-api 6.0-3-SNAPSHOT > - cxf 2.5.1-SNAPSHOT > - owb 1.1.4-SNAPSHOT > - bval 0.4-incubating-SNAPSHOT > - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT > - openejb-openwebbeans-jsf 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT > - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT > - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT > - openejb-jstl 1.3-SNAPSHOT > > Some of these will be easy to deal with, but these seem a bit trickier: > > - karaf-maven-plugin 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT > - org.apache.karaf.tooling.exam.container 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT > - openjpa-maven-plugin 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT > > From a compliance perpective it looks like we're good with the following > previous versions: > > - cxf 2.5.0 > - owb 1.1.3 > - bval 0.3-incubating (our patched version) > > We could easily release again in two weeks or so when these things are all > released. We keep saying we want to release more frequently but we haven't > yet done it. Releasing again when these binaries are out might be a good > way to get into that habit. > > Holding our release isn't that appealing and neither is using > non-reproducable timestamped versions. Neither are really good habits. > > > Thoughts? > > > -David > >
