The other point why I'd prefer mw-1.x and 2.x is that 0.x versions often get interpreted as 'not production ready'
Of course we would also go with 1.0.0 for the release with owb-1.7.3 and upgrade to owb-2.0.0 for 1.1.x and later? LieGrue, strub > Am 02.07.2017 um 13:37 schrieb Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > People have e.g. geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec.jar as <scope>provided in their pom. > So when they use the meecrowave test runner this might clash with the > geronimo-jcdi_2.0 classpath. > > Thus people MUST upgrade their dependencies as well. > > LieGrue, > strub > >> Am 02.07.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: >> >> Le 2 juil. 2017 13:21, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> Here is my take on it: >> We should make ALL API changes at least a minor version bump. >> Moving from JSON-P 1.0 to 1.1 from mw-0.3.0 to 0.3.1 was imo not the best >> idea. >> We should do better in the future. >> >> The problem is that every project which uses Meecrowave would also need to >> update their internal APIs, otherwise they'll get dirty class compat >> issues. So people MUST be aware that an API did change. >> >> >> >> Is that true? If it does occur for something not being an addition or being >> an ee spec change then we have a big trouble (= shouldnt occur by design so >> should be ok to do any time). >> >> We can discuss changing the version to reflect it in another thread but it >> is still minor in term of impact for meecrowave users. >> >> One gain of meecrowave is to not be tied to ee constraint and get more >> freedom on upgrades so if we need to add back this constraint we get a lot >> more maintenance load for pretty much no end user gain IMHO. This is what >> id like to avoid. >> >> What are the thing justifying to not upgrade? Can you list the use cases? >> >> >> This might be mitigated if we would provide a merged meecrowave-api.jar >> which contains all the geronimo-spec + tomcat-api jars we use. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >>> Am 02.07.2017 um 13:14 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I like keeping trunk work and therefore create the maintenance now between >>> the 2 options. >>> >>> Now i dont see why we would need to be stuck on a cdi version. Same as we >>> upgraded from jsonp 1 to 1.1 we can upgrade to cdi 2 directly imo since it >>> shouldnt break anything. >>> >>> Goal would be to not impact the users, give them more api and feature and >>> keep a single branch for us. >>> >>> Anything making this reasoning wrong? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 2 juil. 2017 13:10, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I'd like to do a Meecrowave release with owb-1.7.3 and then create a >>> maintenance branch for the CDI-1.2 version in the next few days. >>> The alternative would be to create the maintenance branch _now_ and push >>> for CDI-2.0 in trunk? >>> >>> I honestly don't care, but we should all have the same understanding and >>> clear communication about which way to go. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >
