Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
+1 for v1. If we don't go back (= we don't make unstable stable modules) it is enough IMO
Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
@mark: i never said that we should do #2. regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de 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.comwrote: 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
Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
the minimum before v1: everybody documents the feature/s they added (/helped with) within the next weeks. (for sure the rest is very welcome to join and/or provide feedback.) if we don't handle it as a blocker for v1, it won't happen any time soon. the optimum before v1: docs + examples + agreed versioning strategy regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de yea, but what are the alternatives? If you have a better idea, then tell us :) The problem is that it's not only about the JSF module but about all other modules as well. LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? @mark: i never said that we should do #2. regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de 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.comwrote: 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
Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
-1 for 1.0 - till adding the most important features from CODI (e.g. ViewAccessScoped) 2013/11/12 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com the minimum before v1: everybody documents the feature/s they added (/helped with) within the next weeks. (for sure the rest is very welcome to join and/or provide feedback.) if we don't handle it as a blocker for v1, it won't happen any time soon. the optimum before v1: docs + examples + agreed versioning strategy regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de yea, but what are the alternatives? If you have a better idea, then tell us :) The problem is that it's not only about the JSF module but about all other modules as well. LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0? @mark: i never said that we should do #2. regards, gerhard 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de 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.comwrote: 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
