Hello Wentao, Sounds interesting can you tell us more about what you’re trying to achieve ?
Also don’t hesitate to contribute any documentation you might produce while learning, and of course don’t hesitate to ask questions, we need to get this community jump-started :) cheers, Serge… > On 2 déc. 2015, at 10:58, Wentao Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > +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] > <mailto:[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 <http://www.jahia.com/> >> SKYPE <skype:abdelkader.midani?add> | TWITTER <https://twitter.com/M_Abdel> >> | VCARD <http://www.jahia.com/vcard/MidaniAbdelkader.vcf> >> >> <unknown.png> >> >> > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY <http://www.jahia.com/> 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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <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 :) >> > <unknown.png>
