If i maintained such a project i would certainly have that kind of information. From the TinkerPop perspective however,i think it would be good to keep the bar "low" and not force more on providers than a basic minimum with respect to this issue.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dylan Millikin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > >
