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> 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