oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jasha Joachimsthal <ja...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Current pom versions
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:31:23 GMT
In case of bugfixes you can always decide to release a 0.31.1, 0.31.2 etc.

Jasha

On 2 August 2012 17:28, Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> > IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and
> eventually aim for a 1.0 release
>
> +1, then following the traditional semantic everybody knows and
> Raymong suggested.
>
> best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:
> > Hi Raymond,
> >
> > in general I kind of agree with you.
> > The Core Oauth specification reached version 31 and should be the last
> one before being an official RFC .
> >
> > IMHO we should aim to version 0.31 and try to align to spec and
> eventually aim for a 1.0 release. Or alternatively we might aim directly to
> a 1.0 release
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I start to question if it's a good idea to use the oauth spec version
> as the base for Amber. There might be cases that make the scheme not so
> good:
> >>
> >> 1. What if there are little code changes between two spec versions
> >> 2. What if we need to fix certain things in Amber for a given spec
> version
> >> 3. What if we implement more specs, such as OpenId connect
> >>
> >> Btw, we can always document which spec level that an amber release
> implements.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Raymond
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi *,
> >>>
> >>> after the release  the current SNAPSHOT version in our poms is
> >>>
> >>> 0.23-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> >>>
> >>> According to our release semantic I was thinking to change it to be
> 0.31-incubating-SNAPSHOT (as the version of the spec we are aiming for).
> >>>
> >>> WDYT? Should we still keep that naming convention until we will
> release the 1.0 version or we can continue like this ?
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Antonio
> >
>

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