draft available at the COMMONSRDF-16 topic branch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-16
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sergio Fernández < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: [email protected] w: http://redlink.co
