Just manpower, I guess ;-)
Am 15.11.13 20:26 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter <[email protected]>: >@Arne: whats blocking for cdi 1.1? >Le 15 nov. 2013 20:20, "Arne Limburg" <[email protected]> a >écrit : > >> 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 >> >> >> >>
