Thomas, you are really welcome to help us with pushing those features. Others as well.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 23:51 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? > > @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 >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
