We could just add AnnotatedTypeBuilder and then refactor it if needed based on the vote outcome.
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 1, 2012, at 18:08, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > hi mark, > > you are right - however, that's also only a basic agreement > (see NarrowingBeanBuilder and AnnotatedTypeBuilder) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/1/2 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> Nope, we have AnnotatedTypeBuilder. This is really a big must >> >> + we have the test structure. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> PS: no worries Jason, family always comes first! >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Monday, January 2, 2012 1:42 AM >>> Subject: Re: Project Planning >>> >>> hi jason, >>> >>> thx for the info. >>> (i'm sorry to hear that.) >>> >>> @your upcoming commits: >>> >>> it would be nice if you can provide the infrastructure for in-container >>> arquillian tests. >>> >>> currently we don't have a single solder feature we agreed on. >>> basically we agreed on @Veto in general, but we haven't agreed on the >> name >>> and therefore we need a formal vote. >>> i'm not sure whether or not we should postpone the vote for some days >>> (until more community members are back). >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/1/2 Jason Porter <[email protected]> >>> >>>> I'll get on the commit wagon shortly. With the Red Hat company shut >>> down >>>> last week, coupled with my wife's emergency trip to see her father >>> before >>>> he passes I've been busy with three of our kids. I'm hoping to >>> commit some >>>> tomorrow, Tuesday for sure when my wife is back and I'm not playing Mom >>> and >>>> Dad :) >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 17:10, "John D. Ament" >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So (and this is going to sound extremely cliche) >>>>> What can I do to help? >>>>> Cuz right now I see lots of commits from you and strub, Lots of >>>> discusses. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Gerhard Petracek < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hi john, >>>>>> >>>>>> jason did that already for solder. >>>>>> >>>>>> in general: >>>>>> we added all parts to [1] and created tasks [2] to discuss them on >>> the >>>>>> mailing list (see the "[DISCUSS] ..." mails). >>>>>> we started to discuss the features with the highest ranking. as >>> soon as >>>> we >>>>>> agree on a feature, we create a "feature"-ticket (e.g. >>> [3]) and it gets >>>>>> committed to deltaspike. >>>>>> afterwards we continue with the next feature/s >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> gerhard >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DeltaSpike/SE+Feature+Ranking >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-2 >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-21 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/1/2 John D. Ament <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was wondering, since I'm new at this and completely lost, >>> how do we go >>>>>>> about putting features into deltaspike? Let's say I love >>> something in >>>>>>> Solder and figure that would be great for deltaspike, do I >>> just create >>>> a >>>>>>> JIRA, email the group saying I want XXXX and here's why? >>> Maybe I >>>> missed >>>>>> an >>>>>>> on boarding seminar somewhere .. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>
