Since the artifacts have already had previous releases, we cannot
restart at 1.0 unless we rename the components and I think that would
be even more confusing.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The way I see it is that these split out new version scheme is what's
>> going to get used by the smx 4 container.. And based on your theory,
>> it would confuse users if smx 4 were using smx 3 components :) AFAIK
>> the biggest motivator to splitting out the components was so that they
>> could get more easily used by the smx 4 distro.
>>
>> Plus right now the 3.3-SNAPSHOT versions are being used by the
>> components in the smx 3 trunk branch and I did not want to step on
>> those deployments just yet, so it's safer to use a different version
>> number, so why not go up to 4.0-SNAPSHOT.
>
> I had assumed that the components would have have their own versioning
> beginning with 1.0 just like the ServiceMix-POM. Why would we confuse
> SMX 3.x users by versioning the components as 4.0? The way I see it,
> it makes the most sense to version the components completely
> independent of either container and just begin each one at 1.0. Then
> each component can be incremented as is necessary according to bug
> fixes and features.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
