Review currently exported package version for 1.0 release

[Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hi Team,

As part of OAK-1741 [1] I have captured details about current exported
packages from various bundles provided as part of Oak.

Currently some packages are exported at 0.18, 0.16 and some are being
exported at bundle version.

Should we bump all of them to 1.0.0 for the 1.0 release and ensure
they are consistent from there on.

Also would helpful to review the list once i.e. if the package export
is required for e.g in oak-solr-osgi exports quite abit but are
probably not required.

Chetan Mehrotra
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1741

Re: Review currently exported package version for 1.0 release

[Julian Sedding <js...@gmail.com>]

> Is there any kind of tooling we could put into place to make this harder to forget?

There's a proposed patch for some tooling in OAK-1536.

Regards
Julian

[OAK-1536]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1536

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 17.4.14 3:14 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> Not consistent, correct. The package versions should evolve
>> semantically based on changed to those specific packages, not in sync
>> with the broader Oak/Jackrabbit release cycle.
>
>
> Is there any kind of tooling we could put into place to make this harder to
> forget?
>
> Michael

Re: Review currently exported package version for 1.0 release

[Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>]

On 17.4.14 3:14 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Not consistent, correct. The package versions should evolve
> semantically based on changed to those specific packages, not in sync
> with the broader Oak/Jackrabbit release cycle.

Is there any kind of tooling we could put into place to make this harder 
to forget?

Michael

Re: Review currently exported package version for 1.0 release

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Chetan Mehrotra
<ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently some packages are exported at 0.18, 0.16 and some are being
> exported at bundle version.

We should add explicit package versions to all exported packages.

> Should we bump all of them to 1.0.0 for the 1.0 release

Yes. After 1.0 we'll need to be much more strict about backwards
compatiblity, so bumping the major version number now is a good idea.

> and ensue they are consistent from there on.

Not consistent, correct. The package versions should evolve
semantically based on changed to those specific packages, not in sync
with the broader Oak/Jackrabbit release cycle.

> Also would helpful to review the list once i.e. if the package export
> is required for e.g in oak-solr-osgi exports quite abit but are
> probably not required.

Agreed. The fewer packages we export now in 1.0, the less backwards
compatibility effort will be required down the line.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Re: Review currently exported package version for 1.0 release

[Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>]

Hi Chetan,

oak-solr-osgi should export the same packages exported by oak-solr-core, to
me the list looks good.

Regards,
Tommaso


2014-04-17 13:01 GMT+02:00 Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Team,
>
> As part of OAK-1741 [1] I have captured details about current exported
> packages from various bundles provided as part of Oak.
>
> Currently some packages are exported at 0.18, 0.16 and some are being
> exported at bundle version.
>
> Should we bump all of them to 1.0.0 for the 1.0 release and ensure
> they are consistent from there on.
>
> Also would helpful to review the list once i.e. if the package export
> is required for e.g in oak-solr-osgi exports quite abit but are
> probably not required.
>
> Chetan Mehrotra
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-1741
>