Ahh damn I always forget. I also had the discussion at direct memory. I always think a TLP should have atleast a 1.0, but I'm wring again. ;)
Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 26.11.2012 um 21:54 schrieb Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Manzke > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > I don't think we'll manage that - most likely we will become a TLP > even with some unreleased components? I actually expect - given an > active community - we will leave the incubator after 2 or 3 component > releases > > Cheers > Christian > >> >> 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 > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de
