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
