+1 for a 1.0 when docs are in order. As far as versioning I prefer the same ver for each module. I do dislike potentially having to release the exact same code multiple times just under a different version but I don't know what the alternatives would be. If you have modules with different version numbers it tends to make the users pom very brittle.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> wrote: > FWIW, I definitely prefer we do 1, and indicate clearly in docs and on a > table on the website what the maturity of each module is. > > On 12 Nov 2013, at 14:34, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
