Re: [DISCUSS] Amend provider listing policies

[Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>]

I just updated the policy page to include the "version compatibility" note:

http://tinkerpop.apache.org/policy.html

If you are a provider it would be most helpful if you could update your
project accordingly. I do think that for projects using maven that are open
source, the pom.xml is a sufficient expression of "version compatibility".

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If i maintained such a project i would certainly have that kind of
> information. From the TinkerPop perspective however,i think it would be
> good to keep the bar "low" and not force more on providers than a basic
> minimum with respect to this issue.
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Dylan Millikin <dy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good. For drivers maybe a "tested against" line would be nice.
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This thread made me start looking at the libraries we have on our home
>> > page:
>> >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/R9-lFCX_2G0/79GAFOH9DgAJ
>> >
>> > While it was easy to figure out the version of TinkerPop that a provider
>> > used if there was a pom.xml involved it was less easy to figure out the
>> > version for other libraries. I think that it would be good if all
>> libraries
>> > listed something that expressed their version compatibility with
>> TinkerPop
>> > as this would reduce confusion with users. I think this is especially
>> true
>> > of the drivers that once complete don't need to see a lot of change from
>> > one release to the next as Gremlin Server's protocol doesn't change from
>> > release to release. That can lead to a library not seeing commits for
>> > months and even though it is compliant and useful with the latest
>> TinkerPop
>> > release might be considered unmaintained to someone looking in for the
>> > first time.
>> >
>> > What does everyone think of amending our listing policy:
>> >
>> > http://tinkerpop.apache.org/policy.html
>> >
>> > to include some requirement like that. Perhaps we don't need another
>> bullet
>> > for this - maybe we could just change the wording of:
>> >
>> > + The project must have some/significant documentation and that
>> > documentation must make explicit its usage of Apache TinkerPop.
>> >
>> > to be something like:
>> >
>> > + The project must have some/significant documentation and that
>> > documentation must make explicit its usage of Apache TinkerPop and its
>> > version compatibility requirements.
>> >
>> > good idea?
>> >
>>
>
>