It's out.  I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/latest-2/latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process should be done._______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/latest-2/ latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process should be done.

Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and no longer applies .GA to final releases... Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we still use .CRX, .BETAX etc.) On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: > ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/latest-2/ >> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process should be >> done. > > There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming of the > 2.1.2 release in maven: > http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ > > I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? > > Congrats on the release! > > cheers, > asgeir > _______________________________________________ > seam-dev mailing list > seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev _______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

Well to be maven compatible we should switch to -CRX, -BETAX etc. Actually, I think it was OSGi, not maven that has the problem you describe. Anyway, we always use explicit versions (and recommend this to people using our poms) so it should be ok... Do people think we should just switch to the maven standard? On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > I thought this renaming did not apply for maven bundles as the maven > resolution mechanism was retarded. > > On Jun 9, 2009, at 08:43, Pete Muir wrote: > >> Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and no longer >> applies .GA to final releases... >> >> Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we still use >> .CRX, .BETAX etc.) >> >> On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: >> >>> ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >>>> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/latest-2/ >>>> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process should be >>>> done. >>> >>> There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming of the >>> 2.1.2 release in maven: >>> http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ >>> >>> I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? >>> >>> Congrats on the release! >>> >>> cheers, >>> asgeir >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seam-dev mailing list >>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seam-dev mailing list >> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev _______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

:-) If someone would update the JBossVersioningGuideline wiki page, we'll be sure to follow it!

The versioning guidelines is osgi afaik. /max Pete Muir wrote: > :-) > > If someone would update the JBossVersioningGuideline wiki page, > we'll be sure to follow it! > > On 9 Jun 2009, at 16:38, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > >> osgi standard is the one that actually is consistent. >> >> Maven 3 will be using osgi. >> >> Really don't think we were told to remove GA from the technical >> names. >> >> /max >> >> Pete Muir wrote: >>> Well to be maven compatible we should switch to -CRX, -BETAX etc. >>> >>> Actually, I think it was OSGi, not maven that has the problem you >>> describe. Anyway, we always use explicit versions (and recommend >>> this to people using our poms) so it should be ok... >>> >>> Do people think we should just switch to the maven standard? >>> >>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>> >>>> I thought this renaming did not apply for maven bundles as the >>>> maven resolution mechanism was retarded. >>>> >>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 08:43, Pete Muir wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and no >>>>> longer applies .GA to final releases... >>>>> >>>>> Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we still >>>>> use .CRX, .BETAX etc.) >>>>> >>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/ >>>>>>> latest-2/ >>>>>>> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>> done. >>>>>> >>>>>> There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming of the >>>>>> 2.1.2 release in maven: >>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? >>>>>> >>>>>> Congrats on the release! >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> asgeir >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seam-dev mailing list >>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

So apparently, I misremembered the outcome of this discussion (which was that not having a GA qualifier breaks all sorts of stuff), and we should go back to numbering them with the GA qualifier. Max, will it break your stuff with this no-qualifier release in there? Do we have to redo the release?

On 10 Jun 2009, at 11:48, Pete Muir wrote: > Right, but they don't reflect that we were asked to drop the GA > qualifier. So, should we add it back in? > > On 9 Jun 2009, at 23:17, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > >> The versioning guidelines is osgi afaik. >> >> /max >> >> Pete Muir wrote: >>> :-) >>> >>> If someone would update the JBossVersioningGuideline wiki page, >>> we'll be sure to follow it! >>> >>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 16:38, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> osgi standard is the one that actually is consistent. >>>> >>>> Maven 3 will be using osgi. >>>> >>>> Really don't think we were told to remove GA from the technical >>>> names. >>>> >>>> /max >>>> >>>> Pete Muir wrote: >>>>> Well to be maven compatible we should switch to -CRX, -BETAX etc. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I think it was OSGi, not maven that has the problem you >>>>> describe. Anyway, we always use explicit versions (and recommend >>>>> this to people using our poms) so it should be ok... >>>>> >>>>> Do people think we should just switch to the maven standard? >>>>> >>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I thought this renaming did not apply for maven bundles as the >>>>>> maven resolution mechanism was retarded. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 08:43, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and no >>>>>>> longer applies .GA to final releases... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we still >>>>>>> use .CRX, .BETAX etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the >>>>>>>>> latest/latest-2/ >>>>>>>>> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process >>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming of the >>>>>>>> 2.1.2 release in maven: >>>>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Congrats on the release! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>>> asgeir >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

Pete Muir wrote: > So apparently, I misremembered the outcome of this discussion > (which was that not having a GA qualifier breaks all sorts of > stuff), and we should go back to numbering them with the GA > qualifier. > > Max, will it break your stuff with this no-qualifier release in > there? Do we have to redo the release? I dont have it downloaded yet, but just try and add it as a runtime in JBossTools if you can do that it works...if not something gotta change ;)

But more importantly, maven repo needs it doesn't it ?

-max > > On 10 Jun 2009, at 11:48, Pete Muir wrote: > >> Right, but they don't reflect that we were asked to drop the GA >> qualifier. So, should we add it back in? >> >> On 9 Jun 2009, at 23:17, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> The versioning guidelines is osgi afaik. >>> >>> /max >>> >>> Pete Muir wrote: >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> If someone would update the JBossVersioningGuideline wiki page, >>>> we'll be sure to follow it! >>>> >>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 16:38, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> osgi standard is the one that actually is consistent. >>>>> >>>>> Maven 3 will be using osgi. >>>>> >>>>> Really don't think we were told to remove GA from the technical >>>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>> Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> Well to be maven compatible we should switch to -CRX, -BETAX >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I think it was OSGi, not maven that has the problem >>>>>> you describe. Anyway, we always use explicit versions (and >>>>>> recommend this to people using our poms) so it should be ok... >>>>>> >>>>>> Do people think we should just switch to the maven standard? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought this renaming did not apply for maven bundles as >>>>>>> the maven resolution mechanism was retarded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 08:43, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and no >>>>>>>> longer applies .GA to final releases... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we still >>>>>>>> use .CRX, .BETAX etc.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/ >>>>>>>>>> latest-2/ >>>>>>>>>> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process >>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming of >>>>>>>>> the 2.1.2 release in maven: >>>>>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Congrats on the release! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>>>> asgeir >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

> Assuming version ranges aren't used, then it's fine. version ranges are very useful and i bet some is using it with seam...so I would say that it should be fixed. /max > >> -max >> >>> On 10 Jun 2009, at 11:48, Pete Muir wrote: >>> >>>> Right, but they don't reflect that we were asked to drop the GA >>>> qualifier. So, should we add it back in? >>>> >>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 23:17, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>>> The versioning guidelines is osgi afaik. >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>> Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> If someone would update the JBossVersioningGuideline wiki >>>>>> page, we'll be sure to follow it! >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 16:38, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> osgi standard is the one that actually is consistent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maven 3 will be using osgi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really don't think we were told to remove GA from the >>>>>>> technical names. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>>> Well to be maven compatible we should switch to -CRX, -BETAX >>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, I think it was OSGi, not maven that has the >>>>>>>> problem you describe. Anyway, we always use explicit >>>>>>>> versions (and recommend this to people using our poms) so it >>>>>>>> should be ok... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do people think we should just switch to the maven standard? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 15:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought this renaming did not apply for maven bundles as >>>>>>>>> the maven resolution mechanism was retarded. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 08:43, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, JBoss has changed their versioning guidelines, and >>>>>>>>>> no longer applies .GA to final releases... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Going forward, there will be no more GA suffix (but we >>>>>>>>>> still use .CRX, .BETAX etc.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9 Jun 2009, at 00:41, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- "Norman Richards" <orb(a)nostacktrace.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> It's out. I'm still waiting on IT to updated the latest/ >>>>>>>>>>>> latest-2/ >>>>>>>>>>>> latest-2.1 docs links, but otherwise the release process >>>>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There seems to have been a small glitch with the naming >>>>>>>>>>> of the 2.1.2 release in maven: >>>>>>>>>>> http://repository.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/seam/jboss-seam/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would expect '2.1.2.GA' rather than '2.1.2'? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Congrats on the release! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> asgeir >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> seam-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:35 AM, Pete Muir wrote: I don't think version ranges work anyway with the . separator between the > micro and qualifier (see > http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4139850#...) but > we can fix by using a pom redirect thing. Norman can you look at this? > What is a pom redirect?