imo the only realistic way to >reduce< the probability that we need changes later on (esp. before v1) is to get involved on a regular basis. e.g. i like what cody lerum does. he migrates a real application (in parallel) and asks a lot of useful question (in the irc channel). that's also a kind of feedback.
regards, gerhard 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
