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 >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> > > >>> >> >> > >> > > >>> >> >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>>