You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tamaya.apache.org by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> on 2015/01/07 02:39:42 UTC
0.1 or 0.2 ?
All,
Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call the
first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
John
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.1
I think there are enough even minor changes discussed to fill several 0.x
or even 0.x.x releases;-)
Werner
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Oliver B. Fischer <o....@swe-blog.net>
wrote:
> +1 for 0.1
>
> Am 07.01.15 um 02:39 schrieb John D. Ament:
>
> All,
>>
>> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
>>
>> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call the
>> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
> --
> N Oliver B. Fischer
> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> P +49 30 44793251
> M +49 178 7903538
> E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> S oliver.b.fischer
> J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> X http://xing.to/obf
>
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
+1 for 0.1
Am 07.01.15 um 02:39 schrieb John D. Ament:
> All,
>
> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
>
> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call the
> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>
> John
>
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
+1 meeeeh don't care. Just pick one and tell me or just upgrade the version ;)
LieGrue,
strub
> On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 22:29, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > is it that important? both can be justified...
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2015-01-07 22:15 GMT+01:00 Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>:
>> I see the current state as a good start to continue, so I dont see anyneed
>> to keep 0.1. If we would through out contextuality, this would change. That
>> would be a showstopper for me...
>>
>> 2015-01-07 20:48 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek
> <ge...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> @mark: +1
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-01-07 8:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>>>
>>> > There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
>>> >
>>> > Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that
> there is
>>> > a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and
> what we
>>> > do have now after all the very good discussions.
>>> >
>>> > I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd
> say we should
>>> only
>>> > go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in
> 0.2 is
>>> the
>>> > way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
>>> >
>>> > LieGrue,
>>> > strub
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch
> <atsticks@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > > +1 for 0.1
>>> > > John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi.,
> 7. Jan. 2015 um
>>> > > 02:42:
>>> > >
>>> > >> All,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and
> forgetting about 0.1.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why
> wouldn't we call
>>> > > the
>>> > >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> John
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Anatole Tresch*
>> Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead
>> Glärnischweg 10
>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
>>
>> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
>> *Twitter: @atsticks*
>> *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
>> <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>*
>>
>> *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79*
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
is it that important? both can be justified...
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-07 22:15 GMT+01:00 Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>:
> I see the current state as a good start to continue, so I dont see anyneed
> to keep 0.1. If we would through out contextuality, this would change. That
> would be a showstopper for me...
>
> 2015-01-07 20:48 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
>
>> @mark: +1
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-01-07 8:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>>
>> > There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
>> >
>> > Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is
>> > a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we
>> > do have now after all the very good discussions.
>> >
>> > I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should
>> only
>> > go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is
>> the
>> > way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
>> >
>> > LieGrue,
>> > strub
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <atsticks@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > > +1 for 0.1
>> > > John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
>> > > 02:42:
>> > >
>> > >> All,
>> > >>
>> > >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
>> > >>
>> > >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call
>> > > the
>> > >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>> > >>
>> > >> John
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Anatole Tresch*
> Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead
> Glärnischweg 10
> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
>
> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
> *Twitter: @atsticks*
> *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>*
>
> *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79*
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
I see the current state as a good start to continue, so I dont see anyneed
to keep 0.1. If we would through out contextuality, this would change. That
would be a showstopper for me...
2015-01-07 20:48 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> @mark: +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2015-01-07 8:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
>
> > There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
> >
> > Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is
> > a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we
> > do have now after all the very good discussions.
> >
> > I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should
> only
> > go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is
> the
> > way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <atsticks@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > +1 for 0.1
> > > John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
> > > 02:42:
> > >
> > >> All,
> > >>
> > >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
> > >>
> > >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call
> > > the
> > >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
--
*Anatole Tresch*
Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead
Glärnischweg 10
CH - 8620 Wetzikon
*Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
*Twitter: @atsticks*
*Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
<http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>*
*Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79*
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
@mark: +1
regards,
gerhard
2015-01-07 8:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>:
> There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
>
> Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is
> a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we
> do have now after all the very good discussions.
>
> I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should only
> go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is the
> way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > +1 for 0.1
> > John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
> > 02:42:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
> >>
> >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call
> > the
> >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.1
Le 7 janv. 2015 08:02, "Mark Struberg" <st...@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
>
> Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is
> a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we
> do have now after all the very good discussions.
>
> I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should only
> go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is the
> way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > +1 for 0.1
> > John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
> > 02:42:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
> >>
> >> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call
> > the
> >> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
There is a 0.1 branch and I didn't want to clash with it.
Also if you look at all the core concepts then you will see that there is a huge difference between what has been there initially (0.1) and what we do have now after all the very good discussions.
I personally don't care much about the version. But I'd say we should only go back to 0.1 if we all agree that the concepts we now have in 0.2 is the way to go and we do not need the 0.1 branch anymore.
LieGrue,
strub
> On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 7:29, Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 for 0.1
> John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
> 02:42:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
>>
>> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call
> the
>> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>>
>> John
>>
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Reinhard Sandtner <re...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.1
I only added missing incubating to the version
Am 07.01.2015 07:30 schrieb "Anatole Tresch" <at...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for 0.1
> John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um
> 02:42:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
> >
> > It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call the
> > first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
> >
> > John
> >
>
Re: 0.1 or 0.2 ?
Posted by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 0.1
John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 7. Jan. 2015 um 02:42:
> All,
>
> Seems like we are targetting a 0.2 release and forgetting about 0.1.
>
> It seems like things have settled down a bit, so why wouldn't we call the
> first release 0.1 instead of 0.2?
>
> John
>