On 26 July 2013 18:51, Hardy Ferentschik <ha...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2013, at 7:26 PM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> I just released the "Final" JPA API jar. It is still using the old
>> naming scheme in terms of repo artifacts; so this one is:
>>
>> groupId : org.hibernate.javax.persistence
>> artifactId : hibernate-jpa-2.1-api
>> version : 1.0.0.Final
>
> nice
>
>>
>> I think moving forward we will move to a slightly different scheme. The
>> group will stay the same, but:
>>
>> artifactId : hibernate-jpa-api
>> version : {jpaVersion}.0.Final
>
> +1 I prefer this scheme as well
+1 it's far better as it avoids mistakes leading to conflicting
versions on classpath
>
>> Also, rather than naming the non-final releases after the draft they
>> come from (because often they span Drafts or partially include Drafts,
>> etc) we'll just go to a straight Alpha/Beta/CR scheme.
>
> how do you know how many releases there are of each type and when to switch?
> Is that an arbitrary choice? Personally I had not problems with the Draft
> naming
> scheme, but if you think this is better.
Agree with Hardy. I never needed the feature myself but I suspect it
would useful to have an indication to which draft it's supposed to
refer to. At the same time you might have fixes which apply on the
same draft so I think this version could be more practical:
2.1.0-draft1-v2
but making sure the "draft" part of the scheme respects alphabetical
ordering.. I don't remember all rules but products use such a scheme
with -redhat-v2 or v3 at the end to match a community release + some
level of patching. Seems to work well for them.
>
> --Hardy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
