I would not start the 2.0 branch (trunk) now, since we are far away from implementing CDI 1.1 and may have one or two 1.2.x release up to then. And we are fine with the cdi11-preview module to implement CDI 1.1
So let's discuss the version switch to 2.0 separately. If no one speaks out loud, I will pick up romains other suggestion and move to CDI 1.1 for the porting module, changing the dependency of the tck-module to version 1.2.1 of the porting module. Cheers, Arne Am 15.11.13 18:12 schrieb "Thomas Andraschko" unter <[email protected]>: >+1 for Romains idea > > >2013/11/15 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> Hi >> >> +1 to set all version to 2.0 and let 1.2 be in maintanance (= replace >> porting module by CDi 1.1 impl) >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2013/11/15 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: >> > Hi, >> > >> > We are at a point, where we need a porting module for the CDI 1.1 TCK. >> > From a technical point of view, it would be possible to add the CDI >>1.1 >> TCK API to the existing porting module since package names don't clash. >> > Should we have a separate openwebbeans-cdi11-porting module or should >>we >> integrate it into the current module? >> > Another possible solution would be to fix the version of the >>dependency >> in webbeans-tck to 1.2.0 or 1.2.1 and just change the porting module to >>use >> CDI 1.1 API. >> > WDYT? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Arne >>
