I thought we were still using R_* and Branch_* for tag names. As for the rest, I was just getting lost in the esthetics. I agree that we should include cvs tag information.
--jason On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Scott M Stark wrote: > > > 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. > > > What do you mean by include the name of the project in the branch > and version tag? Everything branches together so how it there going > to be a clash? > > > > 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 care that I can get the source code for a given release based on > info included in the build and since I didn't see a reason to keep > the name I used it for the version tag. > > > 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. > > > There is no change here. The release will have a JBoss_X_Y_Z version > tag as its identifier. > > > 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... > If the jars have a spec that can be included in the specification tags. The > implementation tags will be JBoss build info. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
