Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=uHglYKB6gfjXvuBk2x8OA0tmfwQiMKkNlxDNgV9QvBMpA6JrWvGHH9gmPR9hjMYjnsscGEAv/c/TZNJA7M+rqgfg23uqB+bji/EWtyigso79TkR2wv+kqBsGmQlvY2x/8fSRbtJCMXVfxwKAQG+Efby6Cd6tljmLFg+fWt6bxVc=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <4A68826C-493D-4F6C-9046-6B1DD0F37C2D@iq80.com>
References: <ACB71196-4B44-4C5B-82D6-CA53E4C912BF@iq80.com>
 <7EFB2FA7-9DB7-4040-A4A5-D9FFE3D78A79@gmail.com>
 <4A68826C-493D-4F6C-9046-6B1DD0F37C2D@iq80.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <E73781D9-B4D4-45E2-A4AA-6FEAC9E8ECCD@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:21:25 -0500
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

>
> Are you kidding me?  You want to open this up for discussion again  
> just as we were going to finally make some progress and hopefully  
> put this to bed.  The reorganization we just did was to have one  
> version number per spec.

Well, as you have probably guessed, I'm not. You aren't putting this  
to "bed". You're ignoring it. I'd like to put it to bed.

We agreed to reorg specs. We did not decide whether or not to release  
specs in independent or interlocked version numbers. Isn't that what  
we discussed on dev@?

>
> As you can see, I am totally against changing what we have right  
> now, one version per spec.

Fine. And I'm against releasing a bunch of specs, for which we've  
gotten the version numbers wrong for twice in this discussion thread.  
If we can't keep them straight, now, seems like we're destined for  
confusion in the future.

So, you and I cancel each other out. Why don't we let the community  
decide and move on? I'm happy to abide by our decision...

P.S. I'd assumed that we'd be passing TCK before releasing the specs  
(at least that's how we've operated in the past). There's some risk  
(probably pretty small) that we'll uncover a problem with specs with  
our testing. Are you planning on releasing prior to tck passing or  
afterward?

--kevan