if everybody is happy with that proposal, I'll implement it in the following tomorrow
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Peter Ansell <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 That versioning scheme sounds useful. > > > > > On 10 Apr 2015, at 8:51 pm, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That was my idea, but it looks there a couple of details to take a look > > before coming out. For me the most important is the contracts that the > api > > define, simple implementation is lower priority. > > > > It's interesting the versioning schema regarding the inclusion of a > simple > > implementation. Thera are two approaches we can follow: a) release > together > > b) release separately > > > > I do not like the first one since bugs in the simple implementation may > no > > affect the api contracts. We could release a new version of the api as > > well, but that could confuse external (real) implementors. > > > > So I propose something like: > > > > * both get released separatelly > > * api is always versioning without path number (i.e., only x.y) > > * simple impl can release patch versions (x.y.z), but then it's clear the > > api version it implements > > > > For example, simple impl 0.1.0 would implement api 0.1 version. Could > that > > work, guys? > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm happy either to release ASAP and release again when clarification > has > >> occurred, or to wait a short while and release. > >> > >> Given we all work on other things, a fairly relaxed project tempo is > going > >> to be needed. Urgent needs to release can always occur but they aren't > the > >> norm. > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > >>> On 10/04/15 02:01, Peter Ansell wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Lewis, > >>> > >>> We want to clarify a few of the contractual wordings first that Stian > >>> has referred to, to remove the specific reliance on the simple module > >>> that I added. > >>> > >>> In addition, I want to work through Stian's idea about exposing the > >>> classes in the simple module, which I am opposed to but we haven't > >>> agreed on yet. > >>> > >>> Once those two are clarified it is ready for a 0.0.3 release for the > >>> commons-rdf-api module at least (also the same for simple depending on > >>> whether it needs its own versioning or not). Then I will start > >>> integrating it into Sesame-4.0.0-alpha1. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Peter > >>> > >>> On 10 April 2015 at 10:41, Lewis John Mcgibbney > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Folks, > >>>> Is the CommonsRDF code base in a state where it could be released? > >>>> Any thoughts? > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Lewis > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Lewis* > > > > > > -- > > Sergio Fernández > > Partner Technology Manager > > Redlink GmbH > > m: +43 6602747925 > > e: [email protected] > > w: http://redlink.co > -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: [email protected] w: http://redlink.co
