I would start with 0.1, because each module should be reviewed. If done the version number can be update to a version reflecting the state. But it would be cool, if after the review and for the final voting as a TLP all would have atleast 1.0?
Wdyt? Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 26.11.2012 um 16:28 schrieb Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Simone Tripodi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all guys, >> >> when importing the codebase, I thought about the following mapping: >> >> * groupId/package: org.99soft.guice.{component} became >> org.apache.onami.{component} >> >> * artifactId: >> >> g-guava -> onami-guava >> guartz -> onami-scheduler >> gspi -> onami-spi >> junice -> onami-test >> lifegycle -> onami-lifecycle >> rocoto -> onami-configuration >> sli4j -> onami-logging >> gache -> onami-cache >> autobind -> onami-autobind >> >> * versioning: kept the versions coming from the donated codebase. >> >> Do you agree on that mappings or versions should start from 0.1? > > I am fine with all above, including to keep the versions from the > original codebase. Versions usually reflect some kind of stability > (0.1 does sound pretty alpha, 0.8 sounds like somebody kept on > working, 2.3 sounds like pretty stable). > > I don't see a benefit on starting all over from 0.1 but some benefits > from reflecting how much work has happened already. Since we lost git > history, it is the only indicator for a quick check > > Cheers > >> TIA, >> -Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de
