+1. Mapping version number to CXS spec is a good idea. I am still in the learning process and hope can bring UNOMI to China as a product. UI end needs build on server end, I think.
Thanks, Wentao Sent from my iPad > On 02 Dec 2015, at 17:36, Abdelkader Midani <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 for 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT > > is incubating needed (is an Apache requirements) ? > > 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT would be more sexy > Cordialement / Best regards > > Abdelkader Midani > Senior Software Engineer > > T +33 1 44 79 37 99 | M +33 6 72 57 93 40 > 8 rue du Sentier | 75002 Paris | France > jahia.com > SKYPE | TWITTER | VCARD > > <unknown.png> > > > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY to evaluate, get trained and to discover why Jahia is a > > leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for Digital Transformation. > >> On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:27, Serge Huber <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi guys, >> >> As we are getting closer to a first release (yeah !), I’d like to propose >> something about the version number of Apache Unomi. >> >> Currently it is at 2.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT, which was mostly to >> differentiate from the 1.0.X version that we had outside of Apache, but I’m >> thinking more and more this doesn’t make much sense from the Apache point of >> view. >> >> I’d like to propose that we go to 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT and therefore >> our first release would be at 1.0.0-incubating. I’m not that found of 0.x >> numbers, especially since in my company we consider the current code as good >> enough for production environments, and I generally tend to think that if >> something can be used in production it should have a “major” version number. >> >> However this does beg the question of how do we map the Unomi version number >> to the CXS specification. As the specification is still evolving, I propose >> that we do something similar to what Apache Tomcat has done and provide a >> version mapping page such as this one : >> https://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html and that we can then freely >> perform releases of working and useful code and still map it to the spec as >> we want. >> >> What do you think ? >> >> Best regards, >> Serge… >> >> ps : lazy consensus will apply here :) >
