Actually thats a good argument for using a single maven 2 repository for incubating and non-incubating releases and forcing the use of the 'incubator/incubating' text in the version of incubating projects releases. As it means if you are looking at the POM its immediately obvious what the incubating status is - whereaas its not obvious if you are using different repositories (since Maven can use many remote repositories taken from the current pom or a super-pom and so from a pom its not completely obvious what comes from where etc).
Hi James, What we do currently (trying to name the versions righ) is: <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.trinidad</groupId> <artifactId>trinidad</artifactId> <packaging>pom</packaging> <name>Apache Incubator Trinidad Podling</name> <version>incubator-m1-SNAPSHOT</version> incubator + m1 = milestone1 + SNAPSHOT (since no m1 release yet) m1 has sorta *historic* reasons; when we (MyFaces) started there was Geronimo in incubation; they used milestone b/c not a fullblown J2EE 1.4 container. MyFaces also was not certified. Since we - the MyFaces PMC - had good experience with the milestone; we keept it for Trinidad as well. What I more like that a seperate maven1/2 repo is maybe a incubator continuum server. Currently Trinidad uses that MyFaces continuum server. What do you think? -Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
