we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know about ;)
LieGrue, strub [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ --- Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: > Von: Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 > An: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: > >> > >>> This points out the possible problem that the > jpa 1.0 spec > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I > gave it a spec > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about > what to do > >>> about this would be appreciated. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Do we really need to change anything? > >> > >> Imho the current > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec > >> with a > >> <version> 1.0 > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it > doesn't hinder us ;) > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we > do not have any problem > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the > groupId since this references EJB > >> and not JPA. > >> > >> So I'd suggest to simply use > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > >> and we're done. > >> > > > > Yes, this would be the thing to do. > > > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which > had gotten to the 3.0 > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. > > > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public > Review Draft stage) > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT > seems completely > > correct. > > > > So even though it's confusing because of the > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more > if we change the artifact > > id or group id (again). > > > > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo > specs though. I have > no strong feelings either way though. > > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec > finalizes > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. > > -mike > > > > Craig > > > >> > >> > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is > the fact, that there are 2 > >> specs online: > >> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ > >> > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, > and this doesn't contain the > >> jpa spec anyway. > >> > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me > (I'm not a geronimized one)? > >> > >> txs and LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Craig L Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System > http://db.apache.org/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > >
