@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
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to