Yep, we should start with 0.1-SNAPSHOT, since we'll hopefully have several releases in incubator before we graduate.
-Donald On 3/28/10 8:40 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi all guys, > package move has been done, I took advantage to update a small subset > of metadata on parent pom, according to new apache info. > Once terminated, I also reported the BVAL-11 issue that I wasn't able > to fix alone, as Kevan suggested I committed the code so the community > can help to resolve the issue. > One small question: is (agimatec) 0.9.6 version still fine for bval? > I'd propose to change it to 0.1-SNAPSHOT, how does it sound to you? > Best regards, have a nice Sunday!!! > Sim > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Simone Tripodi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Donald, >> I 100% support your idea, I'd raise the same question once terminated >> this task :) >> Thanks for your hint, going to commit in a while!!! :) >> Have a nice Sunday, >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I was thinking about collapsing everything into one artifact. The >>> current code structure is because agimatec-validation contains the core >>> engine/metadata handler, which was shared with pre-JSR303 code that >>> Agimatec had, while the agimatec-jsr303 was the add-on layer to fulfill >>> the spec requirements. >>> >>> For now, lets rename the artifacts as: >>> agimatec-validation --> bval-core >>> agimatec-jsr303 --> bval-jsr303 >>> >>> We'll use another JIRA to combine everything or BVAL-1 to split things >>> into an impl and api jar..... >>> >>> I'll try to take a look at the test failures tonight or tomorrow, but go >>> ahead with the commit and we'll figure it out from there. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Donald >>> >>> >>> On 3/27/10 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>> Hi Kevan, >>>> thank you very much for your feedbacks!!! I'm going to commit the code >>>> at this status, I just need to know: if org.apache.bval fits well in >>>> groupId, which artifacts Id do we have to use? Do you have any >>>> suggestion? >>>> Thanks a lot!!! >>>> Simo >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all mates, >>>>>> I'm going to complete the issue but I need you help for 2 small issues I >>>>>> have: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) should I move also groupId and artifactId in poms? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I definitely think so. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) in the jsr-303 module I've 28 failures over 81 tests, I attached on >>>>>> this email the .txt junit reports, is anyone able to explain me why >>>>>> they fail so I can fix them? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I really haven't looked at the code at all, yet... IMO, it's >>>>> absolutely fine for you to commit the code in it's current form. At this >>>>> stage, I don't think anyone would object that the code has test failures. >>>>> Plus committing will allow others to help out... No reason for this to be >>>>> solely on your shoulders. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for doing this! >>>>> >>>>> --kevan >>>> >>> >> >
