Hu Rupert, IMO before the first 1.0 release we need to address all major changes > that will break backward compatibility. From my side this would > include > > * Changes to the Enhancer API as suggested by STANBOL-1326 (see also > my mail from yesterday [1]) > * Review/Change the Stanbol Enhancement Structure > * with a look at standards like Open Annotation and NIF > * and especially considering typical use cases >
I'm very much welcome these changes but I think they can as well be part of a future release. The SNAPSHOT version has been there for a while and so I think it is justified to have a release that is actually compatible with what was built against this snapshot version. In an earlier discussion [2] I argued that it's an exaggeration to guarantee that no matter at which time you take a trunk snapshot version you will have a compatible release at some point, but in this case the trunk has been there for quite a while and software has been built against it. So we should imho follow the Release early, release often" mantra. > > In addition there is still an open discussion about the Contenthub and > the CMS Adapter component. AFAIK @Rafa was investigating this. Could > someone provide more information on that. > There are always things than can be added and that can be improved, I don't see why this should be a blocker for releasing what we have. > > If we want to have an early release of the trunk version we could > consider to define milestone releases and assign the JIRA issues > accordingly. Not sure how such releases would play together with the > semantic versioning rules of OSGI. > We can choose version numbers as they fit. Even having a 2.0 release in the foreseable future wouldn't be a fundamental problem. > > BTW: I am currently working on the 0.12.1 release. As part of that I > have updated most of the OSGI, Sling and commonly used dependencies > (both for 0.12 and in trunk). > > As part of this work I also noticed the huge number of dependencies of > Jersey 2 in the trunk. With the update from 2.2 to 2.7 three > additional one where added (including a repacked version of Google > Guava with several MByte). @Reto: Does we still depend on using > jersey, or could we also consider other options for JAX-RS with 1.0 > It should work with any JAX-RS 2.0 compatible implementation. Cheers, Reto > > best > Rupert > > [1] http://stanbol.markmail.org/thread/beexsyf2t62lavqz > 2. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stanbol-dev/201211.mbox/%3ccalvhueuwvebtxgzj1q51-q6rx490s4antf8g15eykvpdh0t...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Cheers, > > Reto > > > > > > 1. https://github.com/fusepool > > > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen > | > REDLINK.CO.......................................................................... > | http://redlink.co/ >
