I would recommend 1.0.3b if we need it. I hate to have a fourth number in there. Other then that minor change I'm +1
On 8/1/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/31/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/31/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The MevenIde[1] plugin for NetBeans (and Eclipse, and JBuilder, and > Idea) > > has released an update. You can now graphically create a new Maven2 > project > > from an archectype (like shale-blank-archetype). Guess I should update > the > > nightly build script to get that published too :-). > > I've been thinking about the version numbers for the archetypes. I > once had them versioned with the framework, (though they will be > released separately,) then I changed it... and now I'm thinking of > changing back. > > This is more coming from Struts where I'd like to publish an archetype > for the 1.2.x branch as well as 1.3, but applies here as well. > > I think it will be less confusing for the users if v1.0.3 of the > archetype works with the 1.0.3 release of Shale. > > I changed it the first time to avoid being locked into one archetype > release per framework release, but we can always do > shale-archetype-blank 1.0.3.1 if necessary. > > Unless someone has a suggestion for another versioning scheme, I'll > change it back to 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT in a few days. +1 ... this approach seems to make the most sense to users, and 1.0.3.1avoids all the issues that concerned me about lockin to a particular framework version. I would also envision that we'd want to release the initial x.y.z version ( 1.0.3 coming up) of the archetypes along with the corresponding x.y.zversion of the framework -- even if there was no actual change in the archetype. Interim releases (1.0.3.x) could be done separately as necessary. -- > Wendy > Craig
