Thanks, that is exactly my opinion and what I tried to explain by showing how many Web Frameworks Apache has in this "Darwinist" approach.
The master POM builds all Data and Java artifacts right now, so unless a different version was required, everything that's there (in reality we are at "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" till someone finally creates a TAG) could be part of a "1.0.0" release tag. Or is there a review process based on concrete archives? Reza zipped them AFAIK, but there is no equivalent SVN tag neither for /data nor for /java. The internal version number in every XML file does not match the intended release goal (1.0.0 instead of 1.0) I don't think parsers or client API so far does a version check, but ideally that should match in any case. I can tag the data repo. When it is clear what should be part of 1.0.0 somebody also has to do the same in the /java subtree, and should the .NET port by Eberhard be stable and in sync with the Java client, ideally that should also have a matching version. thoughts? On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ...I know you may be busy, but as you provided some (more license > related) input > > here only a day ago or so, what is your or Adobe's opinion on the > question of full > > or at least significant enough W3C compliance in the API(s)?.. > > I don't personally care about W3C compliance, but if someone wants to > release and maintain the devicemap/java/simpleddr code I'm not opposed > to that either. Users can then decide which variant they prefer - it's > not uncommon for Apache projects to have API and implementation > variants and let software darwinism do its thing. > > -Bertrand >
