-1 for 1.0 - till adding the most important features from CODI (e.g.
ViewAccessScoped)


2013/11/12 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>

> the minimum before v1:
> everybody documents the feature/s they added (/helped with) within the next
> weeks.
> (for sure the rest is very welcome to join and/or provide feedback.)
> if we don't handle it as a blocker for v1, it won't happen any time soon.
>
> the optimum before v1:
> docs + examples + agreed versioning strategy
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
>
> > yea, but what are the alternatives?
> > If you have a better idea, then tell us :)
> >
> > The problem is that it's not only about the JSF module but about all
> other
> > modules as well.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
> > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
> > >
> > > @mark:
> > > i never said that we should do #2.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > >
> > >>  Pete, Gerhard
> > >>
> > >>  The Problem here is that there are only 2 ways to handle the
> situation:
> > >>
> > >>  1.) all modules share the same version but have different maturity
> > grades
> > >>
> > >>  2.) each module has it's very own version. A 0.x reflects
> instability,
> > > 1.x
> > >>  reflects maturity. But you know what happened with exactly this
> > approach in
> > >>  Seam3? The problem is that users do not know which version of
> > ds-jsf-api
> > >>  works together with which version of ds-core-impl for example. It
> gets
> > much
> > >>  more complicated with later modules.
> > >>
> > >>  Thus I prefer 1.).
> > >>
> > >>  LieGrue,
> > >>  strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  >________________________________
> > >>  > From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
> > >>  >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > >>  >Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 14:35
> > >>  >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >+1 to Gerhard’s point (I am looking to try to find someone to help
> > with
> > >>  docs, but the person I had in mind just left Red Hat :-(. Also +1 to
> > going
> > >>  to 1.0 soon (i.e. making docs and stability a priority!).
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >On 11 Nov 2013, at 23:09, Gerhard Petracek
> > > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
> > >>  wrote:
> > >>  >
> > >>  >> if we move to v1 soon, we need an useful versioning strategy,
> > > better
> > >>  docs
> > >>  >> and examples + the api and spi need to be stable for some time (in
> > > the
> > >>  best
> > >>  >> case until v2+).
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >> regards,
> > >>  >> gerhard
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >> 2013/11/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> how should that work?
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> Please note that we will have some not perfectly finished
> > > modules very
> > >>  >>> often. Basically whenever we add a new module...
> > >>  >>> There is just no way to avoid this other than making those
> > > modules own
> > >>  >>> releases. But this does not work out neither (as seen on a few
> > > other
> > >>  >>> projects I don't like to name).
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> LieGrue,
> > >>  >>> strub
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>> ________________________________
> > >>  >>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > >>  >>>> To: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>;
> > > dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > >>  >>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54
> > >>  >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>> Well if code is released it should be stable or
> > > explicitely in
> > >>  >>> alpha/beta..maybe we should do subreleases for unstables
> > > modules
> > >>  >>>> Le 11 nov. 2013 18:43, "Mark Struberg"
> > > <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>> Oki folks, txs 4 the feedback, all!
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>> I'd say we should create the
> > > module-maturity-matrix.md first and
> > >>  then
> > >>  >>> we might do the version bump.
> > >>  >>>>> Maybe something like green/blue/orange/red for mature
> > > / ready but
> > >>  still
> > >>  >>> needs a few features / ready but might change it's api
> > > still / work in
> > >>  >>> progress
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>  >>>>> strub
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>  >>>>>> From: Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com>
> > >>  >>>>>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > >>  >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > >>  >>>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:25
> > >>  >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6
> > > or 1.0?
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>> +1 to move to 1.0. We have done the same thing
> > > with Apache Aries
> > >>  moving
> > >>  >>>>>> Blueprint from 0.5 to 1.0 release
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament
> > >>  >>>>>> <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>> Yep, agreed.  Users care about the version #.
> > > I would recommend
> > >>  >>> that if we
> > >>  >>>>>>> could release a 1.0 based on the current code
> > > base + some
> > >>  additional
> > >>  >>> bug
> > >>  >>>>>>> fixes we'll get huge wins.
> > >>  >>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>> +1 to switching current to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.
> > >>  >>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Mark
> > > Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>  >>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> Hi!
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> In the last 2 months I did a few
> > > conference talks and smaller
> > >>  >>>>>>>> presentations (OpenBlend, W-JAX, ..) and
> > > always got the same
> > >>  >>>>>> questions:
> > >>  >>>>>>>> "it's only a 0.x version, so is
> > > it already stable? I
> > >>  >>>>>> don't like to use it
> > >>  >>>>>>>> in production with 0.x"
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> And the actual answer is: "well,
> > > core, cdictrl, etc are stable
> > >>  >>>>>> since a
> > >>  >>>>>>>> long time, other modules are not yet 100%
> > > where we like them".
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> The other fact is that we will never get
> > > all our modules 100%
> > >>  >>> stable.
> > >>  >>>>>>>> Because new modules cannot be released
> > > with the same quality than
> > >>  >>>>>>>> established and well known and bugfixed
> > > modules.
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> Thus I think we should rather introduce a
> > > kind of majurity-matrix
> > >>  >>> for
> > >>  >>>>>>>> DeltaSpike.
> > >>  >>>>>>>> A simple list of modules and their
> > > majurity grade.
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> By officially moving to 1.0 we would gain
> > > much more users.
> > >>  >>>>>>>> I personally do not care about numbers,
> > > but LOTS of users do!
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> Wdyt?
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>  >>>>>>>> strub
> > >>  >>>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>> --
> > >>  >>>>>> Charles Moulliard
> > >>  >>>>>> Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat
> > >>  >>>>>> Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog :
> > > http://cmoulliard.github.io
> > >>  >>>>>>
> > >>  >>>>>
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to