Why does the server need to know anything about the source controlsystem which is being used to manage its sources?
Pet names, as you say, are a time honored tradition amoung software developers. The are also used as a rememberance tool. Many folks will be more inclinded to remeber rabbit-hole than some arbitrary set of numbers. Along the same lines, our branch/tag naming system should be updated to include the name of the project, so we don't get namespace clashes when trying to branch jbossmq or jbossmx and such. > Why do we need a pet name variable that has nothing to > do with obtaining a snapshot of the code? I don't care > that 3.0 is also known by rabbithole. It meaningless. That is why we had shown the version as well as the version name before. It seems like you do care, or you would have left it alone. I understand that you wanted to provide versioning for all jars. I don't see how that relates to changing how we refer to the release. A side not, I don't think that the jar mf impl/spec is really the best place for this type of versioning... or rather I think that it should be expanded further. For example, there is no jboss spec... and for jars that actually do have a spec, what do we put there? What if one jar covers more than once spec. All in all the additions of this package stuff to the jdk was not very well thought out... --jason _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
