On 04/30/2010 06:54 PM, Matthew Adams wrote: > Yes, this occurred to me last night. Are we looking at jdo3-api-3.0, > or jdo2-api-3.0? > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Andy Jefferson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> To me, this justifies renaming the release from JDO 2.3 to JDO 3.0. >>> >> One minor issue with the rename is that the Maven repo has the artifact as >> "jdo2-api". Do we go forward with this same name and just set the version to >> 3.0, or does it become an artifact of "jdo-api" ? >> >>
Hello *, I'd recommend "jdo-api" version 3.0. I'm not a big fan of version numbers in project names and thus I'd prefer to remove the number from "jdo-api" completely (rather than changing it to "jdo3-api", later "jdo4-api" and so on). Or is there any benefit from keeping the major part of the version in the name? If I'm allowed to vote, then: +1 for JDO 3.0 Best regards, Marco :-)
