Hi Andreas, yes to my understanding this was only for versions where we need ranges, not all :)
regards, Achim 2012/6/4 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: > From my side too + 1 to both proposals. > > I don't think that the additional version ranges will produce too much work > IIF we're able to keep those versions together in the form of properties. > > E. G. > > Pax. Web. Version... > Pax. Web. Range... > > That way we'll always be reminded if we update one. In addition I think we > can introduce them on demand and don't have to do it all at once. > > Kind regards, Andreas > On Jun 4, 2012 11:47 AM, "Ioannis Canellos" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think that it does make sense without add too much effort. >> >> -- >> *Ioannis Canellos* >> * >> FuseSource <http://fusesource.com> >> >> ** >> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com >> ** >> Twitter: iocanel >> * >> -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
