Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label the next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big release which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not > convinced > postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea. > 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for cxf > users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs implementation > is not really acceptable. > > Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal to > expect that changes from > 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes. > > As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2 > > Cheers. Sergey > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM > > Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 > > > Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only >> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things. >> >> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to break >> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version could >> be >> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes. >> >> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you >> versionning >> scheme I had on some past project: >> X.Y.Z-R >> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the >> API, >> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for >> patches >> of the current revision. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to >>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users >>> of the JAX-RS stuff. >>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not >>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 >>> >>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect, >>> sticking with 2.0.x. >>> >>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3, >>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who >>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion: >>> > >>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact >>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches, >>> but pretty >>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a >>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and >>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it >>> is a >>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of >>> 2.1.2 >>> > or wait for 2.2? >>> > >>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2: >>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed >>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still >>> > changing) >>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway >>> > >>> > Con: it does affect existing apps >>> > >>> > >>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away. >>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait >>> > that long could be an issue. >>> > >>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list >>> as >>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users >>> are >>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it >>> > for 2.1.2. >>> > >>> > >>> > --- >>> > Daniel Kulp >>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Brice Dutheil >> >> > ---------------------------- > IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) > Registered Number: 171387 > Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland > -- Brice Dutheil
