nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side. For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on the imports and then rebuild their app. That's nothing which we cannot do easily.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > To: gudnabr...@gmail.com; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s > > I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity > = stability > Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <gudnabr...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked >> concepts. I would think most developers would not be surprised by the idea >> that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change. >> >> Matt >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to >> @Typed() >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament > <john.d.am...@gmail.com >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact >> > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" > <john.d.am...@gmail.com> a >> > écrit : >> > > > >> > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking > integrations. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek < >> > > > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike > is a tlp). >> > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > regards, >> > > > > > gerhard >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some > instability is >> fine >> > > > IMHO >> > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" > <cody.le...@gmail.com> a >> > écrit >> > > : >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > One small problem is the early > integration of DS into JBoss >> > > Tools - >> > > > > > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any > are using that >> integration >> > > yet. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete > Muir <pm...@redhat.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian > Kaltepoth < >> > > > > christ...@kaltepoth.de >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum > <cody.le...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> drop em. >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at > 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg < >> > > > > > strub...@yahoo.de> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop > them. annotations are like interfaces >> > > > nowadays. >> > > > > > So >> > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > >> is >> > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous. >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue, >> > > > > > > > > >>> strub >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message > ----- >> > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard > Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> To: > deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc: >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, > March 31, 2013 5:30 PM >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] > re-visit "annotation" package/s >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all, >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an > agreement to use a (sub-)package named >> > > > "annotation" >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > all >> > > > > > > > > >>>> our >> > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within > a package. >> > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels > a bit clumsy if a package >> (currently) >> > > just >> > > > > > > > contains >> > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations. >> > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g. > org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only >> > contains >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > package >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "annotation". >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have > a mixture (some parts are using the >> > > > > > "annotation" >> > > > > > > > > >>>> package >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and some > don't) >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to > align it the one way or the other. >> > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently > in favour of dropping the >> > > > > "annotation"-package/s. >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> regards, >> > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth >> > > > > > > > > > Blog: > http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> > > > > > > > > > Twitter: > http://twitter.com/chkal >> > > > > > > > > > GitHub: > https://github.com/chkal >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
