You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bval.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2013/11/20 13:21:02 UTC
release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Hi
Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
Re: release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Personnally I don't care, just shout before tomorrow morning ;)
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/20 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
> I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x
> versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces,
> in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it
> quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find
> a group consensus on this issue in any case.
>
> br,
> Matt
> On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
>> 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
Re: release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
this is blocked by the fact we rely on geronimo spec jar:
org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-el_2.2_spec:1.0.5-SNAPSHOT
org.apache.geronimo-validation_1.1_spec:1.0
org.apache.geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec:1.0
org.apache.geronimo-interceptor_1.2_spec:1.0
org.apache.geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec:1.0.MR2
I'll ask G if they can release them
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/20 Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>:
> updated to 1.1.0-alpha-SNAPSHOT
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2013/11/20 Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>:
>> I agree. It would be nice to keep the implementation version same as the
>> spec version.
>>
>> However I also understand in some particular scenario, semantics versioning
>> is required that cause deviation from this naming scheme.
>>
>>
>> Albert.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x
>>> versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces,
>>> in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it
>>> quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find
>>> a group consensus on this issue in any case.
>>>
>>> br,
>>> Matt
>>> On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
>>> > 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
>>> >
>>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Albert Lee.
Re: release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
updated to 1.1.0-alpha-SNAPSHOT
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/20 Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>:
> I agree. It would be nice to keep the implementation version same as the
> spec version.
>
> However I also understand in some particular scenario, semantics versioning
> is required that cause deviation from this naming scheme.
>
>
> Albert.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x
>> versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces,
>> in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it
>> quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find
>> a group consensus on this issue in any case.
>>
>> br,
>> Matt
>> On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
>> > 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
>> >
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Albert Lee.
Re: release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Posted by Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>.
I agree. It would be nice to keep the implementation version same as the
spec version.
However I also understand in some particular scenario, semantics versioning
is required that cause deviation from this naming scheme.
Albert.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x
> versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces,
> in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it
> quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find
> a group consensus on this issue in any case.
>
> br,
> Matt
> On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
> > 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >
>
--
Albert Lee.
Re: release 1.1 in 2.0.0-alpha tomorrow?
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
I am personally in favor of the alpha release but not of the 2.x
versioning. My preference is to manage our versions as does Apache MyFaces,
in basic synch with the implemented specification version. This makes it
quite simple for users to know what they're getting, IMHO. I'd like to find
a group consensus on this issue in any case.
br,
Matt
On Nov 20, 2013 6:21 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Any issue if I try (help would be appreciated if yes) to release bval
> 1.1 branch in alpha (I'll update version to 2.0.0-alpha1) tomorrow?
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>