I support this.
Without federation wave is just a wiki; it can't be missing from 1.0.
~
Doug.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Wrobel darkfl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say Federartion is needed for a 1.0 release as its one of the main
points of wave existing to start with and 1.0 implies
I've already discussed this, but as the manager of a 3rd party server, I
support Federation. It can't be missing.
I just wanted this on this thread.
--
alci...@eml.cc
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:26 +0800, Doug douglas.lin...@gmail.com
wrote:
I support this.
Without federation wave is just a
On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Michael MacFadden wrote:
Once we get the issues migrated over we can get the source code moved over as
well. Past that, there is also the process for making an incubator release
that needs to be followed.
Yep. If this is to be an Incubator release, the code
I agree, we should move the code and issues to Apache infra and this should
be the priority. I don't know anything about Jira, but I would like to
assist.
Michael, can you please explain what is the current status and what are the
showstoppers?
2011/4/22 Michael MacFadden
Well, WIAB supports Federation. Maybe the protocol can be improved and some
federation related bugs should be fixed, but all in all basic federation is
supported even now. 1.0 release or 0.5 release - is pure semantics. Maybe we
need to define release naming policy...
I think the whole point of
.
From: James Purser jamesrpur...@gmail.com
To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, 22 April, 2011 11:33:18
Subject: Re: Wave In A Box 1.0
okay a couple of things.
Firstly, the reason I brought up the idea of a 1.0 release is more to get
people thinking about a roadmap
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 17:17, Thomas Wrobel darkfl...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't mater what we call our next goal, but if we call it 1.0 it
should have federation working to an acceptable level. (as 1.0 is a
public perception thing).
If history can teach us anything (initial GWave release,
I agree, I know it's petty semantics, but I would say a 0.x release would be
more appropriate.
That said, James's point is well taken that simply going through the release
exercise is important and will focus us regardless of what the version number
actually is.
~Michael
On Apr 22, 2011,
Okay, we need to start looking at what we think would make a good 1.0
Release.
To this end I'm going to start the ball rolling by asking that people
prioritise their particular list of bugs, features and nice to haves so that
we can start discussing what we can fit into 1.0 and what can wait.
I
IMHO federation is a must. And obviously bug
252http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/issues/detail?id=252needs
to be fixed.
--Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 21:47, James Purser jamesrpur...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, we need to start looking at what we think would make a good
I may have missed some discussion elsewhere, but in my opinion a 1.0 release
can't be done until we migrate over fully to the apache development
infrastructure. I think the biggest blocker right now is Jira. Once we get
the issues migrated over we can get the source code moved over as well.
11 matches
Mail list logo
