Everything that's not under "contrib" should have at least one official release. That's why I suggested to move the "test-data" folder into /contrib (unless we agree it shall better be deleted from /trunk?)
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > OK thanks. > > DDR Simple 1.0.0 is ready for release pretty much as of now. A few minor > improvements include using only Log4J 2 instead of SLF4J ("Eat your own > Dogfood" at Apache if you want, all examples are already migrated;-) The > only dependency is Data 1.0.1 or above, aside from the embedded W3C JAR. > > A combined Examples project 1.0.0 shall follow. Demonstrating all Java > libraries. > > Ideally we should have Jenkins CI sessions for 1.x and later 2.x branches > of all relevant artifacts, at least "Java" and "Examples". The Java 8 > glitch showed, we must have more than just Java 6 even if this is the > minimal JVM version we support until further notice;-) > > Werner > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Reza Naghibi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, just making sure. >> >> So here is my rough roadmap: >> >> -Jan 2015 - release data 1.0.2-Q2 2015, release data 1.0.3-Q3 to Q4, >> release data and client 2.0 >> From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:05 PM >> Subject: Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 >> >> That's why it is slated for a 1.0 release (regardless of maturity but it >> goes along with 1.x of the data files) and it does not need to be >> compatible with any 2.0 data changes in future.Whether or not we maintain 2 >> branches of data, guess time shall tell. Patches or fixes that can be >> applied maybe, but like with other vendors (DeviceAtlas, 52DegreesMobi or >> ScienteMobile/WURFL) they may not maintain 2 parallel repositories forever. >> Werner >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Reza Naghibi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I understand. >> >> What is the roadmap for the legacy client? >> >> Just so you are aware, 2.0 data release will remove the notion of a >> builder from the data. How will the legacy client evolve to support this? >> Take a look at this: >> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/devicemap/trunk/devicemap/java/simpleddr/src/main/java/org/apache/devicemap/simpleddr/builder/?pathrev=1648789 >> >> >> Go into the os, browser, and device. There is no way 2.0 data can >> maintain support for this kind of builder architecture. Are you aware of >> this? >> >> From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 11:48 AM >> Subject: Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 >> >> Well, it's just a fact, the W3C Simple implementation shall be released >> as 1.0 according to a discussion we had a long time ago. >> It's been around and stable almost ever since OpenDDR donated it and that >> has not changed.The only reason it was not released was an incompatible >> change (bug) you slipped into a Data release 1.x where packages of builders >> were named improperly.This was fixed with 1.0,1, thus nothing prevents a >> release of the DDR artifact. >> There is no rift, we have a .NET client (which is barely maintained, but >> that's another issue) and a new direction which allows more flexibility in >> the "Cloud", e.g. retrrieving device data from various sources. That's >> something W3C did not consider important, so the location of the data >> source has to be fixed, that's the only real drawback of the W3C DDR >> implementation. It could only be fixed in the W3C code we don't own;-) >> I trust the PMC is wise enough to release the W3C DDR implementation, >> because not only examples depend on it. And it provides functionality and >> recognition power the "New Cloud" client will not get until V 2.0 as you >> also said. It does not matter if that happens in JIRA or the mailing list, >> JIRA is also transparent and allows us to see what's been done;) >> Cheers,Werner >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Reza Naghibi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So I don't want to have discussions in JIRA, so Werner, can you please >> elaborate on your last point in this thread: >> >> "Indicates, while not in direct competition, the "older" W3C one is a bit >> more mature and stable." >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 >> >> >> The reason im asking you to elaborate is because as a PMC member, I would >> like to better understand your thoughts on this project, its mission >> statement, and where we are going with our data and API development. >> >> Im concerned because you seem to be building a rift in this project in >> regard to old API vs new API. This is not going to be good for the health >> of the project so this is an attempt to better understand your views and >> feeling towards the project and the direction we are going in. This is >> important because you are someone who actively promotes and markets this >> project. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
