I just updated the policy page to include the "version compatibility" note:
http://tinkerpop.apache.org/policy.html If you are a provider it would be most helpful if you could update your project accordingly. I do think that for projects using maven that are open source, the pom.xml is a sufficient expression of "version compatibility". On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <dylan.milli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sounds good. For drivers maybe a "tested against" line would be nice. >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> >> 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? >> > >> > >