we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0
and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not "match" the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then > how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? > > This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. > > Paul Spencer > > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. > > > > other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of > > sync. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Ok, thanks for your feedback. > >> Branch 1.1.5 created. > >> > >> --Manfred > >> > >> > >> On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. > >> > > We must decide between > >> > > - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and > >> > > therefore might confuse users > >> > > - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a > >> tomahawk > >> > > 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 > >> > > >> > +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with > >> > Core 1.1.5. > >> > > >> > (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks "what > >> > happened" to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers > >> > in their public release series.) > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Wendy > >> > > >> > > > > > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
