the minimum before v1: everybody documents the feature/s they added (/helped with) within the next weeks. (for sure the rest is very welcome to join and/or provide feedback.) if we don't handle it as a blocker for v1, it won't happen any time soon.
the optimum before v1: docs + examples + agreed versioning strategy regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > yea, but what are the alternatives? > If you have a better idea, then tell us :) > > The problem is that it's not only about the JSF module but about all other > modules as well. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18 > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > > > @mark: > > i never said that we should do #2. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > >> Pete, Gerhard > >> > >> The Problem here is that there are only 2 ways to handle the situation: > >> > >> 1.) all modules share the same version but have different maturity > grades > >> > >> 2.) each module has it's very own version. A 0.x reflects instability, > > 1.x > >> reflects maturity. But you know what happened with exactly this > approach in > >> Seam3? The problem is that users do not know which version of > ds-jsf-api > >> works together with which version of ds-core-impl for example. It gets > much > >> more complicated with later modules. > >> > >> Thus I prefer 1.). > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >________________________________ > >> > From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> > >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 14:35 > >> >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > >> > > >> > > >> >+1 to Gerhard’s point (I am looking to try to find someone to help > with > >> docs, but the person I had in mind just left Red Hat :-(. Also +1 to > going > >> to 1.0 soon (i.e. making docs and stability a priority!). > >> > > >> > > >> >On 11 Nov 2013, at 23:09, Gerhard Petracek > > <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> if we move to v1 soon, we need an useful versioning strategy, > > better > >> docs > >> >> and examples + the api and spi need to be stable for some time (in > > the > >> best > >> >> case until v2+). > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2013/11/11 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> how should that work? > >> >>> > >> >>> Please note that we will have some not perfectly finished > > modules very > >> >>> often. Basically whenever we add a new module... > >> >>> There is just no way to avoid this other than making those > > modules own > >> >>> releases. But this does not work out neither (as seen on a few > > other > >> >>> projects I don't like to name). > >> >>> > >> >>> LieGrue, > >> >>> strub > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> ________________________________ > >> >>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >>>> To: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>; > > dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54 > >> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Well if code is released it should be stable or > > explicitely in > >> >>> alpha/beta..maybe we should do subreleases for unstables > > modules > >> >>>> Le 11 nov. 2013 18:43, "Mark Struberg" > > <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Oki folks, txs 4 the feedback, all! > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I'd say we should create the > > module-maturity-matrix.md first and > >> then > >> >>> we might do the version bump. > >> >>>>> Maybe something like green/blue/orange/red for mature > > / ready but > >> still > >> >>> needs a few features / ready but might change it's api > > still / work in > >> >>> progress > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> LieGrue, > >> >>>>> strub > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >>>>>> From: Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:25 > >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 > > or 1.0? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> +1 to move to 1.0. We have done the same thing > > with Apache Aries > >> moving > >> >>>>>> Blueprint from 0.5 to 1.0 release > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament > >> >>>>>> <john.d.am...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yep, agreed. Users care about the version #. > > I would recommend > >> >>> that if we > >> >>>>>>> could release a 1.0 based on the current code > > base + some > >> additional > >> >>> bug > >> >>>>>>> fixes we'll get huge wins. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> +1 to switching current to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Mark > > Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de > >> > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Hi! > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> In the last 2 months I did a few > > conference talks and smaller > >> >>>>>>>> presentations (OpenBlend, W-JAX, ..) and > > always got the same > >> >>>>>> questions: > >> >>>>>>>> "it's only a 0.x version, so is > > it already stable? I > >> >>>>>> don't like to use it > >> >>>>>>>> in production with 0.x" > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> And the actual answer is: "well, > > core, cdictrl, etc are stable > >> >>>>>> since a > >> >>>>>>>> long time, other modules are not yet 100% > > where we like them". > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> The other fact is that we will never get > > all our modules 100% > >> >>> stable. > >> >>>>>>>> Because new modules cannot be released > > with the same quality than > >> >>>>>>>> established and well known and bugfixed > > modules. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Thus I think we should rather introduce a > > kind of majurity-matrix > >> >>> for > >> >>>>>>>> DeltaSpike. > >> >>>>>>>> A simple list of modules and their > > majurity grade. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> By officially moving to 1.0 we would gain > > much more users. > >> >>>>>>>> I personally do not care about numbers, > > but LOTS of users do! > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Wdyt? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> LieGrue, > >> >>>>>>>> strub > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> Charles Moulliard > >> >>>>>> Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat > >> >>>>>> Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : > > http://cmoulliard.github.io > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
