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 sta
I was okay moving to 1.0 with 0.5.
+1 for moving to 1.0 now.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Mark Struberg 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 i
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 wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In the las
+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 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 + som
n progress
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Charles Moulliard
> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> Cc: Mark Struberg
> 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
; - Original Message -
> > From: Charles Moulliard
> > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > Cc: Mark Struberg
> > 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
don't like to name).
LieGrue,
strub
>
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
>To: Mark Struberg ; dev@deltaspike.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
>
>
>
>Well
e to name).
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> >To: Mark Struberg ; dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> >Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 20:54
> >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
> >
>
s seen on a few other
>> projects I don't like to name).
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ____
>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> To: Mark Struberg ; dev@deltaspike.apache.org
>>> Sent: Monday,
gt; >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> To: Mark Struberg ; dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> >>&
: Pete Muir
>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 :-(
[mailto:strub...@yahoo.de]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:34 AM
To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
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
+1 for v1. If we don't go back (= we don't make unstable stable
modules) it is enough IMO
t gets much
> more complicated with later modules.
>
> Thus I prefer 1.).
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Pete Muir
> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 14:35
> >
t; 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
>
>> Pete, Gerhard
>&g
ue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Gerhard Petracek
> > 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:
&g
--- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gerhard Petracek
> > > 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:
> &g
gt;
> > > The problem is that it's not only about the JSF module but about all
> > other
> > > modules as well.
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message
>> 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
cated with later modules.
> >
> > Thus I prefer 1.).
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> ____________
> >> From: Pete Muir
> >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 201
).
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> From: Pete Muir
> > >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 No
at 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.
>> > &g
> From: Thomas Andraschko
> > 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
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Thomas Andraschko
> > 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 u
--
> > > From: Thomas Andraschko
> > > 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 understan
t; > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: Thomas Andraschko
> > > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > > > Cc:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 23:51
> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0
>
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: Charles Moulliard
> > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > > Cc: Mark Struberg
> > > Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:25
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
> > >
gt; > needs a few features / ready but might change it's api still / work in
> > > progress
> > >
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -
> > > >
well.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Gerhard Petracek
>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?
>
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -
> >> From: Gerhard Petracek
> >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 16:18
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] next release v
> >> 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 g
gt;>
>> On 12. nov. 2013, at 16:28, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
&g
; >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >> gerhard
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2013/11/12 Mark Struberg
> >> >>
> >> >>> Pet
> > >> 15 months ago DS was proposed to be incubated. IMHO, if DS is going to
> > be
> > >> a success, regular releases is a key factor.
> > >>
> > >> It's been five months since last 0.5 release.
> > >>
> > >&
ed. IMHO, if DS is going to be
>>> a success, regular releases is a key factor.
>>>
>>> It's been five months since last 0.5 release.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> ove
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12. nov. 2013, at 16:28, Mark Stru
; >>> Would it make sense to elect on some big tickets to get 0.6 out?
> >>>
> >>> 15 months ago DS was proposed to be incubated. IMHO, if DS is going to
> be
> >>> a success, regular releases is a key factor.
> >>>
> >>&
xing it looks like 14
>>>>> issues should be moved to 0.7.
>>>>> 16 issues are real issues that needs to be decided upon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it make sense to elect on some big tickets to get 0.6 out?
>>>>>
&
+1 Ove
We are really late for an 0.6. I would release 0.6 this/next month and
after that, lets finish 1.0.
We should fix all open issues and finish the documentation!
hi ove,
i was only talking about the commits.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2014-02-16 22:07 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko :
> +1 Ove
> We are really l
The commit graph shows too few committers.. and I appreciate your work!
I also notice too few Redhat/JBoss Weld/Seam committers left on the project.
How come?
/ove
On 16. feb. 2014, at 22:10, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> hi ove,
>
> i was only talking about the commits.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
Probably because we've become busy with some other projects and priorities :(—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Ove Ranheim wrote:
> The commit graph shows too few committers.. and I appreciate your work!
> I also notice too few Redhat/JBoss Weld/Seam committers lef
That’s reasonable enough.
On 16. feb. 2014, at 23:02, Jason Porter wrote:
> Probably because we've become busy with some other projects and priorities :(—
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Ove Ranheim wrote:
>
>> The commit graph shows too few committers.. an
back 2 the topic, please!
I'd say we should approach 1.0 NOW.
DeltaSpike core and a few other modules is really rock solid already since a
year or so. It is also used heavily in production already.
There will always be some modules which are not so perfectly mature at times.
E.g. if we will ad
IMHO ViewAccessScoped is a showstopper for the JSF users. Many people used
CODI just because of it!
But to be honest, if i will do it, it takes propably 2-4 weeks. I have
currently only time at weekend... and i'm note sure if i know all details
of the implementation ;)
2014-02-17 9:57 GMT+01:00
Hi
can we wait 1 or 2 weeks (no more) to see if we can sort out @Repo/@Tx
stuff? Basically I'm waiting after it for months and this is blocker
to be used ATM.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: h
Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please fix the
Tx stuff.
In that case I'd say we gonna ship a 0.6 and then in 3 weeks move to 1.0.
wdyt?
LieGrue,
strub
On Monday, 17 February 2014, 10:06, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
Hi
>
>
>can we wait 1 or 2 weeks (no mo
+1 for this
Documentation and examples are never complete but with that in mind one
should not stop improving them "because they are never complete anyway" ;-)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please fix
>
+1 for this :)
2014-02-17 10:10 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please fix
> the Tx stuff.
>
> In that case I'd say we gonna ship a 0.6 and then in 3 weeks move to 1.0.
>
> wdyt?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 17 February
+1 Mark
2014-02-17 13:08 GMT+01:00 Ove Ranheim :
> +1 for this :)
>
>
> 2014-02-17 10:10 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>
> > Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please
> fix
> > the Tx stuff.
> >
> > In that case I'd say we gonna ship a 0.6 and then in 3 weeks move to 1.
Mark,
Dunno for the one week delay for 0.6 and 3 weeks delay for 1.0, but +1 to
go with an intermediate step (ie. 0.6).
JLouis
2014-02-17 13:14 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko :
> +1 Mark
>
>
>
> 2014-02-17 13:08 GMT+01:00 Ove Ranheim :
>
> > +1 for this :)
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-17 10:10 GMT+01:00 M
Yes Ove, too few Red Hat committers. But they’re will be one more when CDI 1.2
will be out and work for preparing CDI 2.0 will be on track.
Antoine Sabot-Durand
———
Twitter : @antoine_sd
CDI co-spec lead & eco-system development
Agorava tech lead
Le 16 févr. 2014 à 22:38, Ove Ranhei
+1
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please fix
> the Tx stuff.
>
> In that case I'd say we gonna ship a 0.6 and then in 3 weeks move to 1.0.
>
> wdyt?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 17 February
Hi Antoine, it's good to hear that more red hat committers are on its way :)
On 17 Feb 2014, at 16:22, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
> Yes Ove, too few Red Hat committers. But they’re will be one more when CDI
> 1.2 will be out and work for preparing CDI 2.0 will be on track.
>
> Antoine Sabot-D
+1 for pushing out 0.6 ASAP and 1.0 as soon as all the "must have" features
are complete.
2014-02-17 10:10 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> Oki, I can help a bit with ViewAccessScoped. Romain and Thomas, please fix
> the Tx stuff.
>
> In that case I'd say we gonna ship a 0.6 and then in 3 weeks move
54 matches
Mail list logo
