<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:max.andersen@redhat.com">max.andersen@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Pete Muir wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
<br>
Max, will it break your stuff with this no-qualifier release in there? Do we have to redo the release?<br>
</blockquote></div>
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 ;)<br>
<br>
But more importantly, maven repo needs it doesn't it ?</blockquote><div><br>My concern here is that we really didn't give the community any warning. Granted, the idea of the community release is to test out these things, but still, I think we should either go with a dual-naming release (so have both) or we use .GA and announce that 2.2.0 will be w/o the .GA.<br>
<br>It really isn't going to break Maven 2. If anything, the .GA was breaking Maven 2 conventions because most projects just have a numeric version. But going back to my first point, there could be a lot of scripts out there that are appending .GA to a version number loaded from a property because they assume that JBoss adds this extension when doing a final release.<br>
<br>-Dan <br></div></div><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br>
<a href="http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan">http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan</a><br><br>NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily<br>basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away<br>
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,<br>it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was<br>caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if<br>
you feel that it did not reach my attention.<br>