+1 for releasing together Maruan Sahyoun
Am 31.03.2013 um 19:54 schrieb Guillaume Bailleul <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > I agree with Timo, pdfbox is not (yet) a big project so releasing per > module will cost too many. > We can have modules definition and numbering that permit to do separate > releases in the futur even if we do not for the moment. > > Guillaume > Le 29 mars 2013 15:35, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> I think that doing a release is quite a bit of work and having multiple >> modules >> with separate releases each requires extra time. As long as there are no >> module >> specific maintainers with responsibilities for releases we should do >> releases >> with the complete module set. This also prevents problems with >> incompatibilities >> between the modules. >> >> BR >> Timo >> >>> Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> hat am 29. März 2013 um 14:15 >>> geschrieben: >>> Am 29.03.2013 um 13:18 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <[email protected]>: >>> <SNIP> >>>>> One thing to consider is how we handle releases afterwards. Will we >> always >>>>> release >>>>> all modules as part of a release (like Apache Camel does) or do >> releases >>>>> seperately (as Apache Sling does). >>>> That's a good point, but it'll depend on the details. AFAIK Sling is >> OSGI >>>> based >>>> so that all components should be independent, which makes it easier to >>>> release >>>> them separately. >>> >>> Correct Sling is OSGI based. But Apache Camel also has a core component >> on >>> which others are based. And they had a similar discussion. I don't think >> it's >>> a technical question as if we go for modules within minor releases API's >>> should stay stable so e.g. PDFReader could count on PDFParser. But as a >> start >>> why don't release all modules together and revisit that question later. >>> >>>>> I'm happy to help with implementation/rearrangement as soon as the >>>>> transition to the CMS is done >>>> Cool! >>>> >>>> BR >>>> Andreas Lehmkühler >>> >>> BR >>> Maruan Sahyoun >>
