On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
For what it's worth, Jason's proposal sounds reasonable to me*. But I
don't really fancy changing all the current names either. :)
I don't really want to change them (ie the work)... but I feel very
strong about getting rid of that version mu
For what it's worth, Jason's proposal sounds reasonable to me*. But I
don't really fancy changing all the current names either. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
* Well, I can't say that 1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT made sense at first glance,
but the 1.1MR3-1 followed by 1.1MR3-2 seems clear.
On 3/29/07, Jason Di
On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant)
groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs
the spec version is 1.1MR3
It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming.
I think
This is not our version, its the version of the spec.
Its still a version number in an artifactId... regardless of who's
version it is.
The problem with this is that when you go to change versions you have
to go update a bunch of poms to fix their artifactId instead of
simply updating on
artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant)
groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs
the spec version is 1.1MR3
It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:30 AM, Rick McGui
This is not our version, its the version of the spec. IIRC we had a
big discussion about the best spec naming convention and decided this
was it.
Despite our best intentions, we often end up releasing corrections to
spec jars we've published. Can you suggest a different naming
conventio
That's my understanding ... you are so much more articulate than I :)
On Mar 29, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
What is the alternate proposal?
I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of
what it is" followed by the version identifier. For s
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
What is the alternate proposal?
I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what
it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the name of the
spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of
the spec. For example the
What is the alternate proposal?
On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds...
this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is
a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness?
--jason
I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this
is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a
*very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness?
--jason
10 matches
Mail list logo
