Manfred,
+1 for the Proposal.
Once the proposal is accepted, please post a proposal for the next version
number
for each affected sub project. I would posts one now for Tomahawk, but I do not
want to distract anyone.
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
see inline
On 5/25/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manfred,
Thank you for this! Below are a couple questions.
Manfred Geiler wrote:
> Hi all,
<snip>
>
> Ok, here is my compromise proposal, which I hope everyone can live
with:
> C1. We switch MyFaces Core to a 4 digit version numbering: 1.2.0.0
which
> means
>
>
<major-spec-version>.<minor-spec-version>.<minor-impl-version>.<fix-version>
>
Is this supported by Maven?
yes
<snip>
> C3. Non-core libs will no longer be aligned to Core. Which means that
> Tomahawk/Trinidad/Tobago will always have the freedom to jump to 1.5.0
> or 2.0.0 or any appropriate number whenever there are major feature
> additions or global refactorings.
1) Although it is inferred, should the version number be in the form?
<major-spec-version>.<minor-spec-version>.<fix-version> ([
-<qualifier> ] | [ -<build> ])
2) Should this proposal include the next version number for the
mention projects?
This proposal was meant to define the versioning scheme for MyFaces
Core AND at the same time decouple all other libs
(Tomahawk,Trinidad,Tobago,Shared, etc.) from the core version numbers.
IMO the next version numbers and the future versioning schemes for the
component libs should be discussed for each sub-project separately.
<snip>
>
> Somebody mentioned that this issue is the most controversial since a
> while. Well, I hope this proposal is a good compromise and we/I can
> start the release procedure next week.
>
> Regards,
> Manfred
>
>
In short I support the compromise.
Thanks!
--Manfred
