The api point was a ? for me since you should have meecrowave-core but get the portable approach - guess it is what you mean - which is valid.
+1 for trunk = 2 snapshot and a 1.x branch Le 2 juil. 2017 13:50, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > > > >
