@ "...everyone is free to just add a feature branch...": imo we should keep [1] for single features. otherwise we end up with 100+ branches and we can't drop a single one later on (if it would be needed)... however, we also have to think about an approach for v1+ -> i would suggest to add >new modules< via (feature-)branches once we agreed to add them to deltaspike (in a [discuss]-thread on the dev-list). once a module is stable enough to get part of the next release, we can merge its branch into the master.
regards, gerhard [1] http://incubator.apache.org/deltaspike/suggested-git-workflows.html#contribution-workflow 2013/3/27 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > yup please later than 0.4. > I'd say we call a feature freeze until we ship 0.4 (hopefully next week) > and focus on > > * JSF > * JPA > * Security > > After that we can add new features to the master branch. > > Of course, everyone is free to just add a feature branch for a new feature > which is outside those areas. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com> > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:28 PM > > Subject: Re: Heading towards a 0.4 release > > > >T he last time I asked about it the responses seemed lukewarm, so I > figured it > > wasn't something people really cared about. We could certainly add it in > > post 0.4 if there really is a desire for it. > > — > > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:23 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Jason, > >> Does that mean we are no longer bringing XML config to DeltaSpike, even > >> though it was already voted in? > >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jason Porter > > <lightguard...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> Wrt xml-config, I'll be working on configuring cdi via osgi > > blueprint, > >>> over in the Aries project. If we want to port over the seam config > > stuff, > >>> we can certainly do that too. > >>> — > >>> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>> > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > @Gerhard: the point about proxy was i thought it was not straight > > forward > >>> > since some people will not want to bring any additional lib for it > >>> (because > >>> > they use only interfaces and proxy libs can conflcts). Wonder if > > handling > >>> > it with a dep optional couldn't do the trick too. > >>> > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > >>> > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > >>> > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > >>> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > >>> > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > >>> > 2013/3/26 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > >>> >> @ romain: > >>> >> imo it doesn't make sense to remove something (and add it > > later on > >>> again), > >>> >> if it's just a matter of few hours (to do it immediately). > >>> >> anybody is welcome to work on DS-333. > >>> >> > >>> >> @ DS-288 > >>> >> it's almost done and as i mentioned earlier i'll > > finish it once DS-289 > >>> is > >>> >> done. > >>> >> (yes we need it for 0.4) > >>> >> > >>> >> @ xml-config > >>> >> afair we had an agreement already, but nobody worked on it. > >>> >> > >>> >> regards, > >>> >> gerhard > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> 2013/3/26 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > >>> >> > I think leaving proxy support to full interface only for > > now makes > >>> sense, > >>> >> > we can enrich this further in another release. How about > > we close 113 > >>> >> as a > >>> >> > reduced scope and open a new issue for remaining items? > > I see you > >>> >> already > >>> >> > did some Gerhard, but we still have abstract classes as a > > case as > >>> well. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Gerhard, can you also comment on 288? Do we need this in > > 0.4 or can it > >>> >> > wait? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Romain, I didn't quite get you. Are you saying > > you're on hold on this > >>> >> one > >>> >> > (dependent on something?). > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Does anyone believe we need Seam XML Config in 0.4? > > (DS-269 to 272). > >>> I'd > >>> >> > prefer to move it. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > For DS-105, it looks like consensus is to keep it since > > it's needed > >>> for > >>> >> > older Weld versions. If so can we close as will not fix? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Jason P - Can you look at DS-132/134? Do we need these? > > There are > >>> other > >>> >> > catch like issues out there. Are they needed? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Mark S - You have 12 issues assigned to you :/ > >>> >> > > >>> >> > BTW I created a new filter - only open issues [1] > >>> >> > > >>> >> > John > >>> >> > > >>> >> > [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323789 > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> >> > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Hi > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > DS-60: we are a bunch o wait after it > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > DS-113: think we can push partial bean to another > > release and keep > >>> >> > > interface handling for this iteration (well if you > > import asm part > >>> >> right > >>> >> > > now it can work but then the question will be which > > shade version? a > >>> >> > proxy > >>> >> > > as in cxf?....) > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > other are not blocker IMO > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > >>> >> > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau > > <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > >>> >> > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > >>> >> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > >>> >> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > >>> >> > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > 2013/3/25 Gerhard Petracek > > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > hi john, > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > @ examples: > >>> >> > > > we haven't discussed what our goal is here > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > @ DS-60 > >>> >> > > > imo we should do it for 0.5 (and release 0.5 > >> short< after 0.4) > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > @ DS-113 > >>> >> > > > we have to change the proxy-lib and move it to > > an own module > >>> >> > > > (i'll create the module today) > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > @ DS-263 > >>> >> > > > not needed, but nice to have -> +1 > >>> >> > > > (you can have a look at the setup we used in > > codi for it to know > >>> what > >>> >> > you > >>> >> > > > need) > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > @ DS-278 > >>> >> > > > i re-opened it because we should find a better > > approach imo. > >>> >> > > > however, it isn't a real blocker > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > regards, > >>> >> > > > gerhard > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > 2013/3/25 John D. Ament > > <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > All, > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > Based on the flurry of threads, I wanted > > to help get things > >>> started > >>> >> > to > >>> >> > > > move > >>> >> > > > > towards a 0.4 release. I created the > > filter at [1] to show our > >>> >> > current > >>> >> > > > > progress. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > We currently have 50 issues fixed in 0.4, > > with 27 unresolved for > >>> >> the > >>> >> > > > > release. Some of these issues stick out, > > with me thinking that > >>> >> we've > >>> >> > > > > actually completed them but perhaps need > > some finalization > >>> (note: > >>> >> > I'll > >>> >> > > > use > >>> >> > > > > the abbreviation DS for the DELTASPIKE key > > in JIRA which is > >>> TL;DR) > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > DS-306 - I see examples. Do we need more? > >>> >> > > > > DS-60 - I believe we have started > > integrating CDI Query. Should > >>> >> this > >>> >> > > > have > >>> >> > > > > spawned child tasks? > >>> >> > > > > DS-113 - Gerhard took the reigns on this > > one and apparently it > >>> >> works > >>> >> > > just > >>> >> > > > > like the Seam3 version. Can this be > > closed? > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > Some low hanging fruit: > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > DS-263 - I was actually looking for > > something like this as well. > >>> >> > I've > >>> >> > > > been > >>> >> > > > > playing with JBoss modules a lot and think > > having a binary > >>> release > >>> >> > > would > >>> >> > > > > help add DS as a JBoss Module. If this > > isn't complete, do we > >>> need > >>> >> it > >>> >> > > in > >>> >> > > > > 0.4? > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > DS-278 - If not done, seems easy enough to > > add. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > DS-288 - Seems like another needed > > feature, but wasn't too > >>> >> difficult > >>> >> > in > >>> >> > > > > either CODI or Seam3. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > DS-289 - Ironically, this one isn't > > even scheduled for 0.4 but > >>> is a > >>> >> > > > blocker > >>> >> > > > > for the release. I'll update it as > > such. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > If you have something in the list below > > that shouldn't be (e.g. > >>> >> it's > >>> >> > > not > >>> >> > > > > needed for 0.4) we should get it > > rescheduled. Since previously > >>> >> only > >>> >> > > 289 > >>> >> > > > > was declared needed for 0.4 we should be > > looking at everything > >>> >> else. > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > John > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > [1]: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12323788 > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >
