IMO we can begore being tlp change it (notifying tools we know). Then well need to handle @deprecated for at least ine release...would hurt in code for nthg IMHO Le 2 avr. 2013 23:23, "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Mark, > > In this case it's about the related tooling that broke. Until JBIDE fixes > this, users will end up with the wrong annotations in their code. > > IMHO, I'm not saying no we can't change things like this, but if we do > change them and there are known downstream impacts for tools that support > DS we should let those tools know what we are doing before we make the > change. > > John > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
