[DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
54 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Mark Struberg
Administrator
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Jason Porter
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 <[hidden email]> 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
>



--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

john.d.ament
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
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 <[hidden email]> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Charles Moulliard-2
+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 <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Mark Struberg
Administrator
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 <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> 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
> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Romain Manni-Bucau
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> > <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Mark Struberg
Administrator


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 <[hidden email]>
>To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
>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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>> 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
>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Gerhard Petracek
Administrator
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 <[hidden email]>

>
>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> >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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> >>> 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
> >>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
> >>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Pete Muir
+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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>
>>
>>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

john.d.ament
I think if we get a 1.0 out there, then focus on the docs it should be fine.


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> >>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Mark Struberg
Administrator
In reply to this post by Pete Muir
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 <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Nathan Dennis
I agree with Mark. +1 for 1


best regards,

Nathan Dennis | Software Developer
732 Greenwood Street | Albemarle, NC | 28001
Main (800) 230-7525 | Direct: 704-986-7211 | Mobile 704.984.0829
www.monarchnc.org | [hidden email]



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Struberg [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
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 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 <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>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
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>


[http://monarchnc.org/images/monarch/env.png]Please consider the environment before printing this email.
WARNING: This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of the email by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. If you are unable to determine the sender of this email, please email Monarch at [hidden email] or contact us at toll free (800) 230-7525, and advise us of the error.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 for v1. If we don't go back (= we don't make unstable stable
modules) it is enough IMO
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Gerhard Petracek
Administrator
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
@mark:
i never said that we should do #2.

regards,
gerhard



2013/11/12 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >To: [hidden email]
> >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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> >>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Mark Struberg
Administrator
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 <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]>
>
>>  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 <[hidden email]>
>>  >To: [hidden email]
>>  >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
> <[hidden email]>
>>  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 <[hidden email]>
>>  >>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>  >>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>;
> [hidden email]
>>  >>>> 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"
> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>  >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>  >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>  >>>>>> 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
>>  >>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]
>>  >
>>  >>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Gerhard Petracek
Administrator
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 <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >
> >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> >>  >To: [hidden email]
> >>  >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
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> >>  >>
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>  >>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>;
> > [hidden email]
> >>  >>>> 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"
> > <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>  >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>  >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> >>  >>>>>> 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
> >>  >>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]
> >>  >
> >>  >>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Thomas Andraschko-2
-1 for 1.0 - till adding the most important features from CODI (e.g.
ViewAccessScoped)


2013/11/12 Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>  >To: [hidden email]
> > >>  >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
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>>
> > >>  >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>  >>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>;
> > > [hidden email]
> > >>  >>>> 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"
> > > <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>  >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > >>  >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> > >>  >>>>>> 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
> > >>  >>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Romain Manni-Bucau
@Thomas: does 1 mean "we can replace codi" or "you can use me".

I think the initial statement is right: if we dont do a 1 (foe Xmas?) We'll
not get that much users.

The version mainly constraint us to be stable on package and existing
signatures (for code, doc etc are needed too), not really more IMO.
Le 13 nov. 2013 04:00, "Thomas Andraschko" <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> -1 for 1.0 - till adding the most important features from CODI (e.g.
> ViewAccessScoped)
>
>
> 2013/11/12 Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > To: [hidden email]
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  >To: [hidden email]
> > > >>  >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
> > > > <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  >>
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>>
> > > >>  >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  >>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>;
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > >>  >>>> 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"
> > > > <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > >>  >>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> > > >>  >>>>>> 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
> > > >>  >>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Pete Muir
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
>>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] next release version? 0.6 or 1.0?

Cody Lerum
+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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>> To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
> >>>>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> Cc: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]>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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
123