shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:42:35 GMT
Ok a quick count shows that we have quite a few +1's on the
shindig-1.0.0-rc1-incubating release name (with the final release after it's
been been through a reasonable amount of testing in the real world being
'shindig-1.0.0-incubating'), and I think just one +1 from Dan Peterson for
shindig-0.8.1-1.

Dan, are you going -1 on the shindig-1.0.0-rc1-incubating naming scheme, or
can you live with it? And if your going -1, could you please outline your
objections so the kind folks who prefer it can try to persuade you?

   -- Chris

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Ian Boston <ieb@tfd.co.uk> wrote:

> +1 to shindig-1.0.0-rc1-incubating
>
> however, in that release there must be very clear documentation surrounding
> spec compliance at each level.
>
> eg
> full compliance with the OpenSocial 0.8.1 Specification  except for the
> following known issues. etc etc etc
> partial implementations of the following features in the OpenSocial 0.9
> Specification etc etc etc
>
> eventually I would expect some version 1.x.x to implement OpenSocial
> version 1.0
>
> This is not far from Jackrabbits relationship with JSR-170 (JCRv1) and
> JSR-283 (JCRv2) the current release of Jackrabbit being 1.4.5 (about)
> implementing JCRv1, work in trunk is targeting a 2.0.x release implementing
> JCRv2
>
> Ian
>
> On 2 Dec 2008, at 04:59, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>  Dave <snoopdave@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> As I triggered the thread: Yes, +1 to shindig-1.0.0-rc1-incubating.
>>
>>  Ciao
>>   Henning
>>
>>  +1 to releasing as "shindig-1.0.0-incubating"
>>>
>>
>>  The files you put up for release vote should probably be
>>> "shindig-1.0.0-rc1-incubating"
>>>
>>
>>  - Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Chris Chabot <chabotc@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the thanks-giving-holiday is over in the US (which I'm suspecting
>>>> lead to
>>>> the lack of feedback on this thread), lets wait for the day time to
>>>> start in
>>>> the US time zone and see what others think about the current discussion
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <
>>>> henning@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Chris Chabot <chabotc@google.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>  is there any conflict between calling something '1.0.0' and still
>>>>>> being in
>>>>>> incubation? Is this something we want to reflect in the versioning
or
>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, incubation has nothing to do with this. As Upayavira already
>>>>> wrote, this will be "shindig-1.0.0-incubating" anyway. To drop the
>>>>> "-incubating" postfix, Shindig needs to graduate.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Ciao
>>>>>      Henning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen - Palo Alto, California, U.S.A.
>>>>> henning@schmiedehausen.org "We're Germans and we use Unix.
>>>>> henning@apache.org          That's a combination of two demographic
>>>>> groups
>>>>>                          known to have no sense of humour whatsoever."
>>>>>                             -- Hanno Mueller,
>>>>> de.comp.os.unix.programming
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen - Palo Alto, California, U.S.A.
>> henning@schmiedehausen.org "We're Germans and we use Unix.
>> henning@apache.org          That's a combination of two demographic
>> groups
>>                           known to have no sense of humour whatsoever."
>>                              -- Hanno Mueller, de.comp.os.unix.programming
>>
>
>

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