So, we're voting on starting a vote at this point as to whether or not
we can change a JAR's name pre 1.0?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that's the main point of the discussion I think. We are consistent
> with what we said but users can't wait for years so we are too used to
> maintain it.
>
> +1 for a vote
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>:
>> we would need a vote about your statement, because it changes our official
>> statement.
>> if the majority agrees, we have to postpone such discussions (e.g. until
>> v2).
>>
>> a lot of users are still waiting for v1 before they start with deltaspike.
>> -> we are late, but according to our official statement we are still in the
>> pre v1 mode/phase.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-14 10:49 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> that's not true at all, depend the virality of the code. CdiCtrl and
>>> core are viral now. So either we say users to not use DS before 0.1 or
>>> we keep stability on used modules. Honestly I don't think we have the
>>> choice if we want to promote what we propose. We are late for a 1.0 so
>>> already too much used so we have 1.0 constraints already. Only new
>>> modules don't have them.
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>:
>>> > imo the definition should be simple: if it depends on deltaspike-core,
>>> it's
>>> > a module
>>> >
>>> > @romain:
>>> >
>>> > again:
>>> >> there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we had a
>>> > similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it.
>>> >> (+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very
>>> beginning).
>>> >
>>> > regards,
>>> > gerhard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2014-02-14 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> well I don't agree on modules hierarchy which looks inconsistent but I
>>> >> dont really care while code is here but I agree with Mark names are
>>> >> already used 'in fact it is true for this and for core) so we
>>> >> shouldn't change it anymore.
>>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2014-02-14 9:38 GMT+01:00 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> > As far as I understand , it would be more symmetric from the outside /
>>> >> > overview but technically asymmetric because the dependencies are
>>> >> different.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But the name change feels harmless and would bring balance to the
>>> force.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 14 February 2014 09:31, Thomas Andraschko <
>>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> IMHO there is no difference between our modules and cdictrl.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> However, we should rename it to something like "container-control" to
>>> >> match
>>> >> >> our other project names.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2014-02-14 8:55 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > I'm still -1 (veto) because I'm not convinced that it has ANY
>>> benefit.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > The issue is that CdiCtrl as a whole has NOTHING to do with our
>>> real
>>> >> >> > 'modules'. They do not share even a single import, do not even
>>> have a
>>> >> >> > dependency to ds-core.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > How would you explain a fresh user who is looking at our code that
>>> all
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> > parent pom dependencies do not get used only in this very project?
>>> >> How do
>>> >> >> > you prevent other people from adding dependencies randomly?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It also has a different build lifecycle basically. Actually it's
>>> >> really
>>> >> >> > more a project part on it's own than just a module for ds-core.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I'm a bit undecided about the test-control. It needs CdiCtrl _and_
>>> >> >> > ds-core. But it's also essentially not a ds module neither.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > LieGrue,
>>> >> >> > strub
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:23, Gerhard Petracek <
>>> >> >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > +1 there is no issue with api-/name-/... changes >before< v1. we
>>> had a
>>> >> >> > >similar change in codi (before v1) and there was no issue with it.
>>> >> >> > >(+ we emphasized the possibility of such changes from the very
>>> >> >> beginning).
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >if we change something like that, we should also re-visit the
>>> >> >> > >security-module (the initial reason for creating an own module
>>> isn't
>>> >> >> there
>>> >> >> > >any longer).
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >regards,
>>> >> >> > >gerhard
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >2014-02-10 13:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>>> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>>> >> >> > >:
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> Can't we change the parent?
>>> >> >> > >> IMHO renaming isn't a problem if we do it BEFORE 1.0.
>>> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> 2014-02-10 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>:
>>> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > We could rename the module, but I'd rather not move it under
>>> >> modules
>>> >> >> > >> > because they don't have the same parent. And we also must not
>>> >> change
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > >> > artifactId as cdictrl is already heavily used in projects.
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > LieGrue,
>>> >> >> > >> > strub
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:05, Thomas Andraschko <
>>> >> >> > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > +1 for renaming to container-controler and both under modules
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> > >2014-02-10 12:28 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <
>>> >> john.d.am...@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> -1 for cdi unit (name already in use for the exact same
>>> >> purpose)
>>> >> >> > >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> +1 for renaming cdictrl to container-control
>>> >> >> > >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> +1 for aligning both under modules (even though cdictrl
>>> has no
>>> >> >> > deps on
>>> >> >> > >> > >> core, making it a module makes it easier to understand
>>> from a
>>> >> >> > user's
>>> >> >> > >> > >> point of view).
>>> >> >> > >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> Personally, since it's an upgrade of the version # people
>>> just
>>> >> >> > need to
>>> >> >> > >> > >> be aware of it when doing the upgrade locally in their
>>> >> projects
>>> >> >> > (e.g.
>>> >> >> > >> > >> we can put some notes out there on what needs to be done to
>>> >> >> > upgrade).
>>> >> >> > >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> >> >> > >> > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > test-control could be renamed cdi-unit or something like
>>> it
>>> >> >> IMHO
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-10 11:28 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
>>> >> >> > >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >:
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >> i wouldn't move test-control, since it's a module based
>>> on
>>> >> >> > >> > >> deltaspike-core.
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >> (cdictrl isn't based on deltaspike-core.)
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >> regards,
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >> gerhard
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >> 2014-02-10 11:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <
>>> >> strub...@yahoo.de>:
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> Well, cdictrl is released already. Thus I would rather
>>> not
>>> >> >> > change
>>> >> >> > >> > it's
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> name.
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> test-control is not yet released. So that would be
>>> easier
>>> >> to
>>> >> >> > >> change.
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> LieGrue,
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> strub
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> On Sunday, 9 February 2014, 20:16, Karl Kildén <
>>> >> >> > >> > karl.kil...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> Hello,
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >I know it's been discussed before but now with a
>>> module
>>> >> >> called
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> test-control
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >it just feel unnecessary to be inconsistent even
>>> though
>>> >> >> > cdiCtrl
>>> >> >> > >> is
>>> >> >> > >> > >> not a
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >module it's not so pretty...
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >Cheers / Karl
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
>>> >> >> > >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> > >
>>> >> >> > >> >
>>> >> >> > >>
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>>

Reply via email to