So do we have consensus for option #1 then? I think there are at least
few modules we would have to update to make sure the package versions
are not exported.
Jarek
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com wrote:
At the moment, having thought about versions for the
Hi
I think no. 3 is cool. some other qualifiers that I can think of are
3.0.0.m1, 3.0.0.m2, 3.0.0.release
Lin
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Jarek Gawor jga...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Before the milestone release we might have to figure out what osgi
version (if any) the Geronimo
Keep in mind that in osgi, 3.0.0.m1 3.0.0 !!!
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 15:24, Lin Sun linsun@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I think no. 3 is cool. some other qualifiers that I can think of are
3.0.0.m1, 3.0.0.m2, 3.0.0.release
Lin
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Jarek Gawor jga...@gmail.com
Right, that is why the final release needs to be called 3.0.0.final or
3.0.0.release and cannot be called 3.0.0!
3.0.0.final 3.0.0.M1
3.0.0.release 3.0.0.m1
Lin
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind that in osgi, 3.0.0.m1 3.0.0 !!!
On Thu,
I was actually leaning toward #2 or even #1. The benefit of #2 is that
the final version is what you would normally expect and is consistent
with other projects.
I can certainly see the value in #3 - especially if we release multiple
milestones. It makes it much easier to understand the
At the moment, having thought about versions for the txmanager and jaspi
releases, I would like (1). I'm not very comfortable including versions until
there is good tool support for knowing when they change.I certainly cannot
pick a correct next package version given 2 code bases and an
Hi,
Before the milestone release we might have to figure out what osgi
version (if any) the Geronimo packages should be exported at. I can
think of a few possibilities:
1) No version exported for milestone releases. In the final release
everything would be exported with 3.0.0 version.
2) Use
