Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ace.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ace.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul.bakker.nl@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: paul.bakker.nl@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <ED01ADC5-E7E4-4716-B08A-E69807C7C977@luminis.nl>
References: <F479219E-4352-46C0-A409-7A5441A10758@luminis.nl>
	<CAKjo4POOjx4KKBU50BN=11cxxA2g9t0XPeHH6vfzJ+34Knf6yA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED01ADC5-E7E4-4716-B08A-E69807C7C977@luminis.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:08:21 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGrzLmVra7ejdUbYMnBJRUcVBd-dCX7OhUeWoFON3Tbzb3z-DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Towards a new release and baselining support...
From: Paul Bakker <paul.bakker@luminis.eu>
To: dev@ace.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0d12dada3204eb0ea8b4

--047d7bdc0d12dada3204eb0ea8b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 for purging the old MA
+1 for semantic versioning of the release itself. This should reflect the
largest change on the bundle level, which on itself should reflect the
largest change on package level.

Paul


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Marcel Offermans <
marcel.offermans@luminis.nl> wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:29 , Bram de Kruijff <bdekruijff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Marcel Offermans
> > <marcel.offermans@luminis.nl> wrote:
> >> As you all know, a lot of things have happened recently within the ACE
> project. We=92ve rewritten the complete management agent, added quite a f=
ew
> features to the server and squashed bugs. With all of this work done I fe=
el
> we should start working towards a new release now, but I=92d like to get
> everbody=92s opinion and check if there are things we forgot about that
> really need to make it into a new release.
> >
> > A big question is what we will do with the 'old' management agent. At
> > present that code is still scattered throughout several projects. So..
> > will we keep supporting it, deprecate it until the next, or purge it?
> > I think installed base is low en keeping it around surely will give a
> > lot of overhead in maintaining the codebase and moving forward on
> > interfaces. For that reason I would argue to purge it.
>
> I agree to purge it, as described in ACE-424 [1].
>
> > What will the (semantic) version of the release be? On the agent side
> > it feels like a major.. but that may depend on what we do with the old
> > one.
>
> First question is *do* we semantically version the release itself? I thin=
k
> we should as I see no reason to use a different versioning scheme.
>
> If so, I would be surprised if we don=92t end up calling this 2.0.0 as I
> just broke an API in a backward incompatible way because I feel it was
> wrong (an interface extending ManagedService for no good reason).
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-424
>
>

--047d7bdc0d12dada3204eb0ea8b4--