You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oltu.apache.org by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> on 2012/08/02 10:49:55 UTC
Current pom versions
Hi *,
after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
Regards
Antonio
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Thanks a lot Antonio,
fortunately the experience was friend of us this time - before
promoting Amber release, Any23 release took something like 3 RCs
before to get it right, it was just a matter of learning from past
errors :)
Have a nice day, all the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Simone
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi Antonio,
>>
>> yes, feel free to update the current pom
>
> cool, I'll do
>
>> - I poorly forgot about the
>> semantic and let mvn update if for me.
>>
>> Please apologize and thanks!!!
>
> no probs. Actually I take another chance to thank you for the great job done as release manager.
> It was one of the smoothest release I have ever seen.....
>
> Great stuff
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>>>
>>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone
On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>
> yes, feel free to update the current pom
cool, I'll do
> - I poorly forgot about the
> semantic and let mvn update if for me.
>
> Please apologize and thanks!!!
no probs. Actually I take another chance to thank you for the great job done as release manager.
It was one of the smoothest release I have ever seen.....
Great stuff
Regards
Antonio
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>>
>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>>
>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>>
>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Antonio,
yes, feel free to update the current pom - I poorly forgot about the
semantic and let mvn update if for me.
Please apologize and thanks!!!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>
> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>
> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good.
Raymond Feng
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Raymond,
>
> in general I kind of agree with you.
> The Core Oauth specification reached version 31 and should be the last one before being an official RFC .
>
> IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and eventually aim for a 1.0 release. Or alternatively we might aim directly to a 1.0 release
>
> WDYT?
>
> Antonio
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so good:
>>
>> 1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
>> 2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec version
>> 3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
>>
>> Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release implements.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>>>
>>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Jasha Joachimsthal <ja...@apache.org>.
In case of bugfixes you can always decide to release a 0.31.1, 0.31.2 etc.
Jasha
On 2 August 2012 17:28, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> > IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and
> eventually aim for a 1.0 release
>
> +1, then following the traditional semantic everybody knows and
> Raymong suggested.
>
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > Hi Raymond,
> >
> > in general I kind of agree with you.
> > The Core Oauth specification reached version 31 and should be the last
> one before being an official RFC .
> >
> > IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and
> eventually aim for a 1.0 release. Or alternatively we might aim directly to
> a 1.0 release
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version
> as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so
> good:
> >>
> >> 1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
> >> 2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec
> version
> >> 3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
> >>
> >> Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release
> implements.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Raymond
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi *,
> >>>
> >>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
> >>>
> >>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> >>>
> >>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be
> 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
> >>>
> >>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will
> release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Antonio
> >
>
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
> IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and eventually aim for a 1.0 release
+1, then following the traditional semantic everybody knows and
Raymong suggested.
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Raymond,
>
> in general I kind of agree with you.
> The Core Oauth specification reached version 31 and should be the last one before being an official RFC .
>
> IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and eventually aim for a 1.0 release. Or alternatively we might aim directly to a 1.0 release
>
> WDYT?
>
> Antonio
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so good:
>>
>> 1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
>> 2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec version
>> 3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
>>
>> Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release implements.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>>>
>>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Raymond,
in general I kind of agree with you.
The Core Oauth specification reached version 31 and should be the last one before being an official RFC .
IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and eventually aim for a 1.0 release. Or alternatively we might aim directly to a 1.0 release
WDYT?
Antonio
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so good:
>
> 1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
> 2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec version
> 3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
>
> Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release implements.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi *,
>>
>> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>>
>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>>
>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
Re: Current pom versions
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so good:
1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec version
3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release implements.
Thanks,
Raymond
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> after the release the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
>
> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
>
> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio