@Romain: I understand all your concerns - really! But from the view of CODI users, the current situation is quite disappointing because the most required CODI features are still not available since over a year
IMO 1.0 should contain all important features. I would be happy if we could import Gerhards port of the CODI features for a 1.0 and enhance/reimplement the internal stuff later. Anyway, i think DS is currently already quite stable and a 1.0 is really required after this long time. But, as gerhard already stated, a better documentation and examples is really the minimum! I would also take the same version for each module. Its also easier to maintain for the users. 2013/11/13 Cody Lerum <cody.le...@gmail.com> > +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 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
