Hi Mark, I get the impression that most of (Dan's) hesistation has been about the documentation.. we don't want to lose potential interest because of this..
Having said that, what do the people who have joined more recently have to say? Sabine, Michael, Vangjel, etc? Kevin On 22 Apr 2011 at 9:56, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > > > I peaked over the sources a little bit (still don't have > > much clue) and it doesn't look that bad imo. > > > > What about thinking off a new isis 0.9.0-incubating > > release? > > > > We did this 0.9 version scheme in a few other projects > > which are already close to 1.0 to show it's not _yet_ 1.0 > > but already quite near. > > > > The fact that we have a incubator release out there is > > pretty important for the adoption rate sometimes. > > > > WDYT? > > > > This of course will need a bit of preparation: > > > > > > 1.) re-check the IP clearance. Especially our 3rd party > > dependencies. Even an incubator release must meet our > > license requirements. E.g. use specs from > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/ > > instead of any javax.* or org.hibernate.* maven artifacts if > > possible. > > > > 2.) We better not need any 3rd party <repositories>. > > If we have such a thing, then we should look if there are > > any alternatives. That's no hard show stopper but generally > > a good idea to look at > > > > 3.) Go through all open jira issues and identify show > > stopper issues. > > > > 4.) create a new isis-0.9.0 'Version' in Jira and move all > > bugs to 'fixed in isis-0.9.0' in Jira. > > > > Anything I forgot? > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > >
