Alexander Klimetschek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Applied to the Jackrabbit 1.4.x release cycle, this would have given
us the following releases:
* Jackrabbit 1.4.1, including core 1.4.1
* Jackrabbit 1.4.2, including core 1.4.2
* Jackrabbit 1.4.3, including jcr-commons 1.4.1 and jcr-rmi 1.4.1
* Jackrabbit 1.4.4, including core 1.4.3
* Jackrabbit 1.4.5, including core 1.4.4
* Jackrabbit 1.4.6, including core 1.4.5
Generally I agree, but I know that something like jackrabbit 1.4.6
containing a 1.4.5 core jar would be very confusing when users report
a problem. Couldn't we make an exception that the most important
component jackrabbit-core always gets the same version number as the
overall release - which would imply that sometimes core gets a version
number increase without an actual code change.
Ok, I guess you all will like this suggestion :)
What about using a completly different versioning for the release, like
jackrabbit 2008-07 or 1.4.200807 :) Or something completly different
which keeps you free of using the same version numbers for core and the
release itself.
Somehow would feel strange to me, that you mandate to use the same
version number for core and the release but not for other essential parts.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
