On 13 Aug 07, at 1:02 AM 13 Aug 07, John Casey wrote:
I think the move is a good idea, especially since it means formally
decoupling the release cycles. Just one question: why drop the
version? If this is a total rewrite of the code, then isn't a 3.0
more in order than going all the way back to 1.0? The behaviors and
specs for artifacts are still relatively well defined, and won't
change that significantly, after all.
I just always default something "new" to 1.0-S. The artifact
interfaces probably won't change much, but I see the guts changing
quite a bit.
-john
On Aug 12, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I have separated out maven-artifact into its own module here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/maven-artifact
I will attempt to use it in trunk mid week, and right now I have
change the groupId to org.apache.maven.artifact.
Do we need to change the name of the artifactId to prevent
confusion? The groupId should prevent any dependency clashes, but
the name being the same may cause some confusion. I was also going
to drop the version back to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT (start using major,
minor, micro).
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
John Casey
Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
