On 11/16/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov 06, at 8:34 PM 15 Nov 06, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hate to quibble, but incubating is a gerund used as an adjective. ;-)
>>
>> I also think of alpha and beta as
As long as it makes some sense in english am ok :) hopefully noone
will i18n-ize the name of the file :)
-- dims
On 11/16/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov 06, at 8:34 PM 15 Nov 06, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Nov 06, at 8:34 PM 15 Nov 06, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hate to quibble, but incubating is a gerund used as an adjective. ;-)
I also think of alpha and beta as adjectives also, as in "the
alpha version", alpha being an adject
On 15 Nov 06, at 8:34 PM 15 Nov 06, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hate to quibble, but incubating is a gerund used as an adjective. ;-)
I also think of alpha and beta as adjectives also, as in "the alpha
version", alpha being an adjective modifying version.
Bottom line, I like incubating, as it d
Good point! :)
-Stephen
On 11/15/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hate to quibble, but incubating is a gerund used as an adjective. ;-)
I also think of alpha and beta as adjectives also, as in "the alpha
version", alpha being an adjective modifying version.
Bottom line, I like i
Hate to quibble, but incubating is a gerund used as an adjective. ;-)
I also think of alpha and beta as adjectives also, as in "the alpha
version", alpha being an adjective modifying version.
Bottom line, I like incubating, as it describes the release, as
opposed to incubator which isn't ve
I think incubating here is being used in noun form as a gerund... ;)
-Stephen
On 11/15/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12 Nov 06, at 6:17 PM 12 Nov 06, Henri Yandell wrote:
> incubating appears to be the more common - let's make incubating
> our standard.
>
As a qualifier a no
On 12 Nov 06, at 6:17 PM 12 Nov 06, Henri Yandell wrote:
incubating appears to be the more common - let's make incubating
our standard.
As a qualifier a noun should be used like alpha, beta, milestone. No
one generally uses verbs in a version like incubating. Also because
it's just the
incubating appears to be the more common - let's make incubating our standard.
Hen
On 11/12/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Abdera uses incubating.
-Stephen
On 11/11/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday November 11 2006 3:51 pm, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> > On 11/1
Abdera uses incubating.
-Stephen
On 11/11/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday November 11 2006 3:51 pm, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or is it ok to do:
> >
> > org.apache.wicket
> > wicket-parent
> > 1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
On 11/11/06, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CXF and Tuscany are currently using incubator. Yoko is using incubating.
Does it matter?
Nah. -- justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
On Saturday November 11 2006 3:51 pm, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or is it ok to do:
> >
> > org.apache.wicket
> > wicket-parent
> > 1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> From a Maven point of view, this one is preferable so that the groupId
> and artifac
On 11/11/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right. But if they specify org.apache.wicket:wicket:1.0, and some
dependency they have has a dependency on
org.apache.incubator.wicket:wicket:1.0-incubating, they'll end up with
both. If the groupId is the same, they'll just the dependency
My understanding is the same as Wendy and Stephen's. Put incubating
in the version (required), not the groupId or artifactId.
Yoav
On 11/11/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right. But if they specify org.apache.wicket:wicket:1.0, and some
dependency they have has a dependency on
Right. But if they specify org.apache.wicket:wicket:1.0, and some
dependency they have has a dependency on
org.apache.incubator.wicket:wicket:1.0-incubating, they'll end up with
both. If the groupId is the same, they'll just the dependency they
specified.
-Stephen
On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst
On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Or is it ok to do:
org.apache.wicket
wicket-parent
1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
From a Maven point of view, this one is preferable so that the groupId
and artifactId will not have to change after graduation.
It also meets the requirement
On 11/11/06, Stephen Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> org.apache.incubator.wicket
> wicket-parent
> 1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
I think that's a bad thing, as upon the first release after
graduation, the groupId will change, and therefore y
On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
Is it a requirement or a 'good thing (tm)' to have the following
groupId and version for maven built incubator projects?
e.g. take wicket-parent:
org.apache.incubator.wicket
wicket-parent
1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
I think that's a b
All,
Is it a requirement or a 'good thing (tm)' to have the following
groupId and version for maven built incubator projects?
e.g. take wicket-parent:
org.apache.incubator.wicket
wicket-parent
1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
Or is it ok to do:
org.apache.wicket
wicket-parent
1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT
19 matches
Mail list logo
