Hi Peter, I like this statement: http://iandunn.name/open-source-values-reflected-in-version-numbering/ That's why "no reason to rush" can perfectly co-exist with 0.x versions being considered stable.
Regards, Dieter On 12.08.13 05:15, "Peter Monks" <[email protected]> wrote: >If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new >TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes for >cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"? Wouldn't a more conservative, >fix-centric approach be more advisable? > >Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to rush." >concerns me the most. CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years ago and >the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable, reliable >client library available. Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an official >CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by this lack. > >Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS sub-project >though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client libraries, or is >it more around client library experimentation? > >Cheers, >Peter > > > > > > > >On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Jens. Make it 0.10.0. Getting really close though. >> >> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between >>now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as >>well. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jay Brown >> Senior Engineer, ECM Development >> IBM Software Group >> [email protected] >> >> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this >>is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had >> >> >> From: >> >> "Huebel, Jens" <[email protected]> >> >> To: >> >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >> >> Date: >> >> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM >> >> Subject: >> >> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0 >> >> >> >> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. >> >> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made >>us >> releasing another version pretty soon. >> >> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a >> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of >>a >> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of >> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable. >> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of >>classes. >> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor >> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the >> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet. >> >> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0 >> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate >> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;) >> >> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the >> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality >> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project? >> >> Just my 2 cents >> >> Jens >> >> >> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a >> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam >> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish. >> > >> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if >> >some native speakers could support us here. >> > >> > >> >- Florian >> > >> > >> >> Thanks Florian. If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing >>whatever's >> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes >>etc. >> >>a bit. I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) >>from >> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's >> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can >>tell). >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now. >> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. >>Any >> >>>opinions? >> >>> >> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it >>sufficiently >> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some >>places >> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major >> >>>functionality in the near future. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> - Florian >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote: >> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0? >> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version >>bump? >> >>>> >> >>>> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
