I'm still looking into the 1.x to 2.x
version change, to see if feasible, but please don't wait for it to verify
this latest build.
David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/19/2007 03:31 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
[wtp-dev] Our last minute plans for
JEM code in our M5
I'd like to start actually building the JEM code to include in our M5 (instead
of the current patched version we have).
So, I'll try that this afternoon, and if our WTP JUnits pass, I'll ask
teams that depend on JEM to do a quick sanity check to be
sure nothing is amiss.
Further, assuming that first step goes ok, I'd actually like to bump up
our JEM versions to the planned "2.0.0" to get in to M5.
This will cause us a little more pain now, but I think any adopters that
also use/depend on JEM can more easily adjust using the M5 code
in a form that's closer to final form, where as if we bump up after M5,
for M6, that's getting pretty late in the cycle for a major version increase.
The version increase is pretty mechanical, but it effects about 100 of
our bundle manifests, so everyone will need to make sure their
HEAD code matches what has been released (or, we'll have to do some funny
Note: besides WST and JST, the potential version change also effects JSF.
I'll send out follow up notes to wtp-releng if/when teams need to test
and/or increase version constrain ranges.
Let me know if anyone has any concerns with this plan.
wtp-dev mailing list