G'day Dieter, No need to explain open source to me. ;-)
I'm simply passing on a message I've heard several times from potential implementers. Perhaps the quote below (or a variation thereof) could be displayed on the homepage? Cheers, Peter On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:35 AM, "Guendisch, Dieter" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
