On 27 Oct 2010, at 12:11 , Bram de Kruijff wrote: > New insights may lead to new changes but for now I'd say it is a > pretty good start. Some comments/questions I have at this point would > be: > > 1) As Marcel suggested we should keep it pretty flat. This is not > flat, but one can say it is pretty flat. I think we should think about > level-1 order in terms in software lifecycle. Eg. We would release > amdatu-opensocial as a whole and thus it has one version number. For > something like the amdatu-examples this might not be so clear?
Structure looks good, I like the term "pretty flat" ;) Regarding versioning of releases, I do think we need to be clear about how we version releases, individual bundles and individual packages. I'm fine with assigning one version number to a release, but would not want individual bundles or packages to get that same version number. Instead they should all be versioned independently, and only changed if something actually changed (according to the versioning policy that the OSGi alliance recommends). > 2) As a next step we should probably specify some release target. Eg. > the current release is kind of like a amdatu-full distribution which > give you all the goodies, but we will soon need the > amdatu-manager and amdatu-launcher as well. Makes sense to me to release individual projects, instead of "big bang releases". This is how we do it at Felix too, each subproject has its own releases. > Anyway, overall I think it is a good first order layout and suggest we > move along with it. Agreed. Greetings, marcel
