change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Justin Edelson <ju...@gmail.com>]

I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.

Currently, the version of this module is the same as the underlying GWT
version. So currently, it is 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT. However, this goes against
our overall versioning principals and also fails to accommodate for the
fact that we may need to release more than one bundle within the
lifespan of any particular GWT version.

I'd like to change the versioning scheme to some more in line with what
we already have and release contrib/gwt/servlet as version 3.0.0 with
these package exports:

org.apache.sling.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc;version=3.0.0
com.google.gwt.rpc.server.*;version=2.0.3
com.google.gwt.user.server.rpc.*;version=2.0.3
com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.*;version=2.0.3

Going forward, the package export for
o.a.s.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc will likely be incremented along
with the bundle version, but theoretically if GWT 2.1.0 (or a later
version) doesn't require changes to that package, it would remain the same.

WDYT?

Justin

Re: change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Justin Edelson <ju...@gmail.com>]

On 7/8/10 10:58 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Justin Edelson  wrote
>> On 7/7/10 11:55 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7 Jul 2010, at 16:26, Justin Edelson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
>>>> misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.
>>
>> One more thing I'd like to do before this release is more
>> contrib/gwt/servlet to bundles/extensions/gwt and contrib/gwt/samples to
>> samples/gwt.
>>
>> I'm not sure what, if any, policy exists for moving things from contrib
>> (or even how something ends up in contrib in the first place), but if a
>> PMC member could give me the OK (or not), I'd appreciate it.
>>
> The original idea was that all new modules start in contrib - however we
> failed to follow this sometimes, so some modules show directly up in the
> main area.
> Modules from contrib can be moved to the main area if there is the
> fealing that this is an important part of sling and/or this is backed up
> by several developers.
> Now, here again, the idea is to not polute the main area with hundreds
> of bundles which are not maintained anymore.
> 
> Or in other words, from a users perspective: if something is in the main
> area, users can be sure that they are helped if they have problems etc.
> whereas if something is in contrib it might be that there is no activate
> developer (anymore)
> 
> Ok that's a long anwswer :)
Thanks for the long answer :). This makes a lot of sense.

> 
> Now for the gwt stuff I'm not sure - I'm not against moving it, however
> I have the feeling that atm there is no general interest in it. So count
> this as a 0 :)
Well, my intent in moving it to bundles/extensions was to say that I was
going to actively upgrade it going forward. But if I'm the only one
willing to do so, I'll leave it in contrib.

If it attracts significant usage (or any usage other than me), we can
move it later.

Thanks,

Justin

> 
> Regards
> Carsten

Re: change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Justin Edelson  wrote
> On 7/7/10 11:55 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2010, at 16:26, Justin Edelson wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
>>> misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.
> 
> One more thing I'd like to do before this release is more
> contrib/gwt/servlet to bundles/extensions/gwt and contrib/gwt/samples to
> samples/gwt.
> 
> I'm not sure what, if any, policy exists for moving things from contrib
> (or even how something ends up in contrib in the first place), but if a
> PMC member could give me the OK (or not), I'd appreciate it.
> 
The original idea was that all new modules start in contrib - however we
failed to follow this sometimes, so some modules show directly up in the
main area.
Modules from contrib can be moved to the main area if there is the
fealing that this is an important part of sling and/or this is backed up
by several developers.
Now, here again, the idea is to not polute the main area with hundreds
of bundles which are not maintained anymore.

Or in other words, from a users perspective: if something is in the main
area, users can be sure that they are helped if they have problems etc.
whereas if something is in contrib it might be that there is no activate
developer (anymore)

Ok that's a long anwswer :)

Now for the gwt stuff I'm not sure - I'm not against moving it, however
I have the feeling that atm there is no general interest in it. So count
this as a 0 :)

Regards
Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Justin Edelson <ju...@gmail.com>]

On 7/7/10 11:55 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
> 
> On 7 Jul 2010, at 16:26, Justin Edelson wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
>> misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.

One more thing I'd like to do before this release is more
contrib/gwt/servlet to bundles/extensions/gwt and contrib/gwt/samples to
samples/gwt.

I'm not sure what, if any, policy exists for moving things from contrib
(or even how something ends up in contrib in the first place), but if a
PMC member could give me the OK (or not), I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Justin Edelson <ju...@gmail.com>]

On 7/7/10 11:55 AM, Ian Boston wrote:
> 
> On 7 Jul 2010, at 16:26, Justin Edelson wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
>> misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.
>>
>> Currently, the version of this module is the same as the underlying GWT
>> version. So currently, it is 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT. However, this goes against
>> our overall versioning principals and also fails to accommodate for the
>> fact that we may need to release more than one bundle within the
>> lifespan of any particular GWT version.
>>
>> I'd like to change the versioning scheme to some more in line with what
>> we already have and release contrib/gwt/servlet as version 3.0.0 with
>> these package exports:
>>
>> org.apache.sling.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc;version=3.0.0
>> com.google.gwt.rpc.server.*;version=2.0.3
>> com.google.gwt.user.server.rpc.*;version=2.0.3
>> com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.*;version=2.0.3
>>
>> Going forward, the package export for
>> o.a.s.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc will likely be incremented along
>> with the bundle version, but theoretically if GWT 2.1.0 (or a later
>> version) doesn't require changes to that package, it would remain the same.
>>
>> WDYT?
> 
> +1
> Assuming the 3.0.0 is chosen because 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT is already there.
> Pity we missed 1.0, 2.0
Yes. I should have explained this better.

AFAICT, this module has *never* been released, so technically, we could
go with 1.0.0, but I would rather stick with 3.0.0.

Justin


> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
>>
>> Justin
> 

Re: change versioning scheme for gwt contrib module

[Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk>]

On 7 Jul 2010, at 16:26, Justin Edelson wrote:

> I'd like to release the contrib/gwt/servlet module, but have some
> misgivings about the versioning scheme used there.
> 
> Currently, the version of this module is the same as the underlying GWT
> version. So currently, it is 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT. However, this goes against
> our overall versioning principals and also fails to accommodate for the
> fact that we may need to release more than one bundle within the
> lifespan of any particular GWT version.
> 
> I'd like to change the versioning scheme to some more in line with what
> we already have and release contrib/gwt/servlet as version 3.0.0 with
> these package exports:
> 
> org.apache.sling.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc;version=3.0.0
> com.google.gwt.rpc.server.*;version=2.0.3
> com.google.gwt.user.server.rpc.*;version=2.0.3
> com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.*;version=2.0.3
> 
> Going forward, the package export for
> o.a.s.extensions.gwt.user.server.rpc will likely be incremented along
> with the bundle version, but theoretically if GWT 2.1.0 (or a later
> version) doesn't require changes to that package, it would remain the same.
> 
> WDYT?

+1
Assuming the 3.0.0 is chosen because 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT is already there.
Pity we missed 1.0, 2.0


Ian


> 
> Justin