Thanks, David, for populating the repository and for your willingness to handle commits. The naming issue is quite a quandary. Would this approach (or derivation of) work? a) Add a JPA 1.0 spec to the repo - this is not necessary, but may be good for the sake of completeness. b) Use the new 2.0 repo for 2.0 spec work. c) For JPA 3.0, add a 3.0-SNAPSHOT version to geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec, leaving the the current 1.0 version intact. -Jeremy
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mark Struberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we have to use 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT! > > At least '-SNAPSHOT' has to be at the end, because maven does handle > snapshot releases completely different than tagged final releases. > See [1], [2] + many more internal maven-details you do not want to know > about ;) > > > LieGrue, > strub > > [1] http://maven.apache.org/glossary.html > [2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-release-plugin/ > > > --- Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: > > > Von: Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Betreff: Re: Updating the JPA spec jar for JPA 2.0 > > An: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Datum: Dienstag, 11. November 2008, 19:50 > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Craig L Russell > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > schrieb am Di, 11.11.2008: > > >> > > >>> This points out the possible problem that the > > jpa 1.0 spec > > >>> appeared to be part of the ejb 3.0 spec so I > > gave it a spec > > >>> version number of 3.0. Any suggestions about > > what to do > > >>> about this would be appreciated. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Do we really need to change anything? > > >> > > >> Imho the current > > >> <artifactId> geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec > > >> with a > > >> <version> 1.0 > > >> is somehow not really maven stylish, but it > > doesn't hinder us ;) > > >> The version of the jpa-spec actually is 1.0 and we > > do not have any problem > > >> other than the confusing term '3.0' in the > > groupId since this references EJB > > >> and not JPA. > > >> > > >> So I'd suggest to simply use > > >> <version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > > >> and we're done. > > >> > > > > > > Yes, this would be the thing to do. > > > > > > The original JPA was released as part of EJB, which > > had gotten to the 3.0 > > > level. But JPA was brand, spanking new 1.0. > > > > > > The current JPA specification (JSR 317, now in Public > > Review Draft stage) > > > is being billed as JPA Version 2.0. So 2.0-SNAPSHOT > > seems completely > > > correct. > > > > > > So even though it's confusing because of the > > original geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec > > > nomenclature, I'd say we confuse things even more > > if we change the artifact > > > id or group id (again). > > > > > > > That's easiest for migration. It's unfortunate that > > geronimo-jpa_x.y_spec > > doesn't follow the same pattern as the other geronimo > > specs though. I have > > no strong feelings either way though. > > > > We might want to keep the EA nomenclature so > > 2.0-EA-SNAPSHOT or > > 2.0-SNAPSHOT-EA could be the current version. Once the spec > > finalizes > > 2.0-SNAPSHOT seems fair. > > > > -mike > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Humm, btw, what's really confusing me now is > > the fact, that there are 2 > > >> specs online: > > >> > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ > > >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/geronimo-spec/ > > >> > > >> I've always used the geronimo-spec until now, > > and this doesn't contain the > > >> jpa spec anyway. > > >> > > >> So could someone shed a light on this for me > > (I'm not a geronimized one)? > > >> > > >> txs and LieGrue, > > >> strub > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Craig L Russell > > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System > > http://db.apache.org/jdo > > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > > > > > > >
