Hi Donald, I like Mike's proposal. Using PFD2 for the Geronimo spec API artifact indicates that it lines up with proposed final draft 2 of the spec and OpenJPA being named M3 clearly indicates the milestone release level.
-Jeremy On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Michael Dick <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Donald, > Thanks for all the work you've done to sort this out. > > For OpenJPA I'd prefer openjpa-2.0.0-M3. I don't see how adding PFD2 or EA8 > would help there. There is no proposed draft for OpenJPA, and EA sounds too > much like SNAPSHOT to me. > > For the Geronimo jars I'm inclined to go with PFD2 (leaning towards the > latter), since there _is_ proposed final draft for the JPA spec. It also > conveys some meaning to other products which may include in the geronimo > spec but may not include OpenJPA. > > Just my two cents, > -mike > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Once Iteration 11 is done this week, we plan on publishing a Milestone 3 > > release based on it next week. In some email exchanges with Geir, it > looks > > like we have a new Apache/Sun agreement that will let us release > pre-final > > spec based artifacts to the normal release repos. Given this, what does > > everyone think about the artifact naming? Should we use the M3 > designation > > for OpenJPA and the Geronimo JPA 2.0 spec? > > openjpa-2.0.0-M3 > > geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-M3 > > Or would it be better to name the api based on the spec level it > > implemented? > > geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2 > > Or just stay with the early access naming and drop the SNAPSHOT? > > geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-EA8 > > > > Thoughts? I'd like to start the spec api release over on the Geronimo > side > > no later than tomorrow, so we can hopefully have it published and ready > to > > consume in the OpenJPA M3 branch early next week. > > > > > > -Donald > > >
