deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:56:21 GMT
+1 after first tlp release to be exact
Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
> > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <cody.lerum@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> christian@kaltepoth.de
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <cody.lerum@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > struberg@yahoo.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces
nowadays.
> > So
> > > > this
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named
"annotation"
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently)
just
> > > > contains
> > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
contains the
> > > > package
> > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using
the
> > "annotation"
> > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message