Sounds good. For drivers maybe a "tested against" line would be nice.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > This thread made me start looking at the libraries we have on our home > page: > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/R9-lFCX_2G0/79GAFOH9DgAJ > > While it was easy to figure out the version of TinkerPop that a provider > used if there was a pom.xml involved it was less easy to figure out the > version for other libraries. I think that it would be good if all libraries > listed something that expressed their version compatibility with TinkerPop > as this would reduce confusion with users. I think this is especially true > of the drivers that once complete don't need to see a lot of change from > one release to the next as Gremlin Server's protocol doesn't change from > release to release. That can lead to a library not seeing commits for > months and even though it is compliant and useful with the latest TinkerPop > release might be considered unmaintained to someone looking in for the > first time. > > What does everyone think of amending our listing policy: > > http://tinkerpop.apache.org/policy.html > > to include some requirement like that. Perhaps we don't need another bullet > for this - maybe we could just change the wording of: > > + The project must have some/significant documentation and that > documentation must make explicit its usage of Apache TinkerPop. > > to be something like: > > + The project must have some/significant documentation and that > documentation must make explicit its usage of Apache TinkerPop and its > version compatibility requirements. > > good idea? >
