6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne
On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x > > JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x > > I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. > > 1.1 -> 1.1.x, > 1.2 -> 1.2.x > > > Paul Spencer > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
-- Dennis Byrne
