From pgier at redhat.com  Fri Oct  9 10:15:03 2015
From: pgier at redhat.com (Paul Gier)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 09:15:03 -0500
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] [Proposal] Rename EAP BOM artifactIds from
	javaee-7.0 to javaee-7
Message-ID: <5617CBE7.8010300@redhat.com>

Hi Everyone,

I realized the ".0" is probably redundant in "javaee-7.0", since there
will never be a "javaee-7.1".  And the "7.0" sort of makes it seem like
we are referring to the EAP version in some of the BOM artifactIds such
as "jboss-javaee-7.0-eap".  I propose we change these artifactIds to use
"7" instead of "7.0".  So, for example:

jboss-javaee-7.0-eap -> jboss-javaee-7-eap

We haven't released eap 7.0 Alpha yet, so I think these current
artifactIds have not spread too far into the wild yet to cause much of a
problem.

The trickier case would be the javaee specs BOM
(org.jboss.spec:jboss-javaee-7.0) since this does already have some
official community releases in Nexus.  So we should probably just leave
this one as-is.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

From meisele at redhat.com  Fri Oct  9 10:34:01 2015
From: meisele at redhat.com (Markus Eisele)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:34:01 +0200
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] [Proposal] Rename EAP BOM artifactIds from
 javaee-7.0 to javaee-7
In-Reply-To: <5617CBE7.8010300@redhat.com>
References: <5617CBE7.8010300@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <CAGbrqv2MBwkd5NBVD6=-Sdgv9YSOFvDD-xkEKJhyyb5PfufB1g@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Makes sense to me!

M
On Oct 9, 2015 4:15 PM, "Paul Gier" <pgier at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I realized the ".0" is probably redundant in "javaee-7.0", since there
> will never be a "javaee-7.1".  And the "7.0" sort of makes it seem like
> we are referring to the EAP version in some of the BOM artifactIds such
> as "jboss-javaee-7.0-eap".  I propose we change these artifactIds to use
> "7" instead of "7.0".  So, for example:
>
> jboss-javaee-7.0-eap -> jboss-javaee-7-eap
>
> We haven't released eap 7.0 Alpha yet, so I think these current
> artifactIds have not spread too far into the wild yet to cause much of a
> problem.
>
> The trickier case would be the javaee specs BOM
> (org.jboss.spec:jboss-javaee-7.0) since this does already have some
> official community releases in Nexus.  So we should probably just leave
> this one as-is.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
> _______________________________________________
> jbossdeveloper mailing list
> jbossdeveloper at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossdeveloper/attachments/20151009/4188cec5/attachment.html 

From rbenevid at redhat.com  Fri Oct  9 14:38:48 2015
From: rbenevid at redhat.com (Rafael Benevides)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:38:48 -0400
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] [Proposal] Rename EAP BOM artifactIds from
 javaee-7.0 to javaee-7
In-Reply-To: <CAGbrqv2MBwkd5NBVD6=-Sdgv9YSOFvDD-xkEKJhyyb5PfufB1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5617CBE7.8010300@redhat.com>
	<CAGbrqv2MBwkd5NBVD6=-Sdgv9YSOFvDD-xkEKJhyyb5PfufB1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+kEUD1xLRoNmknjXWG5DCqDm+NBuDvuFXc6BLMuHszYA8pc6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for the late response since you have already sent the PR, but I would
suggest using "jboss-javaee7-eap"  since javaee7 is a more common term.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Markus Eisele <meisele at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Makes sense to me!
>
> M
> On Oct 9, 2015 4:15 PM, "Paul Gier" <pgier at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I realized the ".0" is probably redundant in "javaee-7.0", since there
>> will never be a "javaee-7.1".  And the "7.0" sort of makes it seem like
>> we are referring to the EAP version in some of the BOM artifactIds such
>> as "jboss-javaee-7.0-eap".  I propose we change these artifactIds to use
>> "7" instead of "7.0".  So, for example:
>>
>> jboss-javaee-7.0-eap -> jboss-javaee-7-eap
>>
>> We haven't released eap 7.0 Alpha yet, so I think these current
>> artifactIds have not spread too far into the wild yet to cause much of a
>> problem.
>>
>> The trickier case would be the javaee specs BOM
>> (org.jboss.spec:jboss-javaee-7.0) since this does already have some
>> official community releases in Nexus.  So we should probably just leave
>> this one as-is.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbossdeveloper mailing list
>> jbossdeveloper at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbossdeveloper mailing list
> jbossdeveloper at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper
>



-- 
*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer Materials lead
M: +1-919-592-6255



Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossdeveloper/attachments/20151009/1fa59a1b/attachment.html 

From sgilda at redhat.com  Thu Oct 22 14:14:10 2015
From: sgilda at redhat.com (Sande Gilda)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:14:10 -0400
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] Updates to the 6.4 quickstarts
Message-ID: <56292772.5020308@redhat.com>

Hi everyone,

I am once again resurrecting the discussion about updating README files 
for the JBoss EAP 6.4 quickstarts to fix broken links. The original 
issue is here:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RHD-722

Dan created this issue for the quickstarts: 
https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/issues/1671

This issue was fixed in the 6.4.x branch here: 
https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.x

Apparently jboss.org still uses this link: 
https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/ 
<https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/cdi-stereotype>

We don't generally change the 6.4.0.GA tag after a release.  Should we 
tag a new branch with a weil known name for you to use? Or can you use 
the existing 6.4.x branch?

Thanks,
Sande

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossdeveloper/attachments/20151022/74631139/attachment.html 

From pgier at redhat.com  Thu Oct 22 14:46:51 2015
From: pgier at redhat.com (Paul Gier)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:46:51 -0500
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] Updates to the 6.4 quickstarts
In-Reply-To: <56292772.5020308@redhat.com>
References: <56292772.5020308@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56292F1B.8080908@redhat.com>

Making updates on the branch has no effect on the tag, so I don't see
any reason not to use the existing 6.4.x branch.

On 10/22/2015 01:14 PM, Sande Gilda wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am once again resurrecting the discussion about updating README files
> for the JBoss EAP 6.4 quickstarts to fix broken links. The original
> issue is here:
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RHD-722
> 
> Dan created this issue for the quickstarts:
> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/issues/1671
> 
> This issue was fixed in the 6.4.x branch here:
> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.x
> 
> Apparently jboss.org still uses this link:
> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/
> <https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/cdi-stereotype>
> 
> We don't generally change the 6.4.0.GA tag after a release.  Should we
> tag a new branch with a weil known name for you to use? Or can you use
> the existing 6.4.x branch?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sande
> 

From probinso at redhat.com  Tue Oct 27 06:24:52 2015
From: probinso at redhat.com (Paul Robinson)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:24:52 +0000
Subject: [jbossdeveloper] Updates to the 6.4 quickstarts
In-Reply-To: <56292F1B.8080908@redhat.com>
References: <56292772.5020308@redhat.com> <56292F1B.8080908@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <CAL+vToYi9a804b=w9-GXsPGq2zXgX8tf+wnchDmiN5StGnuEHA@mail.gmail.com>

Sande,

Sorry for the late reply. I think we can just make use of the branch. I'll
resurrect this if we see any issues.

Paul.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Paul Gier <pgier at redhat.com> wrote:

> Making updates on the branch has no effect on the tag, so I don't see
> any reason not to use the existing 6.4.x branch.
>
> On 10/22/2015 01:14 PM, Sande Gilda wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am once again resurrecting the discussion about updating README files
> > for the JBoss EAP 6.4 quickstarts to fix broken links. The original
> > issue is here:
> > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RHD-722
> >
> > Dan created this issue for the quickstarts:
> > https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/issues/1671
> >
> > This issue was fixed in the 6.4.x branch here:
> > https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.x
> >
> > Apparently jboss.org still uses this link:
> > https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/
> > <
> https://github.com/jboss-developer/jboss-eap-quickstarts/tree/6.4.0.GA/cdi-stereotype
> >
> >
> > We don't generally change the 6.4.0.GA tag after a release.  Should we
> > tag a new branch with a weil known name for you to use? Or can you use
> > the existing 6.4.x branch?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sande
> >
>



-- 
Paul

-----
Paul Robinson
Red Hat Developer Program Engineering (Web Development lead)
JBoss Developer Program (Web Development lead)

Free/busy info:
https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=probinso%40redhat.com&ctz=Europe/London

JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors:Michael Cunningham (US), Charles Peters (US), Matt Parson (US),
Paul Hickey (Ireland)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbossdeveloper/attachments/20151027/1fe216b1/attachment-0001.html