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 muck in the artifactId.
* 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.
Ya, seems weird at first, but I was just mapping David's example, which was for a SNAPSHOT ;-)
--jason
On 3/29/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: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 we should reconsider the convention. And use the artifacts version to contain *all* of the version information. Since the current convention's version is mostly irrelevant anyways, I suggest that we use the spec's version + revision number (counter) as the version. That makes the above look like: artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment-spec groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs version=1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT And when released the version would be: version=1.1MR3-1 This indicates the spec version and a revision count for how many update/iterations we have applied to it. When its time to make a new revision then we'd have: version=1.1MR3-2 And when the spec version changes to say 1.2, then we'd have: version=1.2-1 IMO this is *much* more natural and allows us to use the Maven dependencyManagement section to manage all version information effectively for child modules. --jason
