shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Brown <e...@google.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:02:48 GMT
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I'm +1 on 0.8.1 and -0 on 1.0.x (not going to -1 it but think it will
> be a headache).  I think it will be a big source of confusion trying to map
> Shindig revisions to spec revisions:
>
> OpenSocial <-> Shindig
> 0.8.1          1.0.23
> 0.9.0          1.1.7
> 0.9.1          1.2.23
> 0.9.1          1.3.3
> 1.0.0          1.4.7
> ...
> 2.0.0          3.5.8
>
>
> This may be a little different than other cases because our major Shindig
> revisions will be very closely tied to spec revisions for a while to come.
> I
> don't think this is often the case.


That is absolutely not true. During the 0.8 timeline (~July-present) shindig
went through no less than 3 major architectural changes that would be
considered major changes in any project. We're not planning on any real
architectural changes to support 0.9 at this point in time, and it's highly
likely that someone will be able to take their existing 0.8 solution and
upgrade to whatever Shindig version supports 0.9 without issue.

Software versions are all about interface compatibility, not specification
compatibility. If that were the case there'd be no httpd 2.x. The argument
about confusion is bogus. Name one specification where the reference
implementation's versioning scheme aligned with the specification version. I
can name a dozen that do not, and there was never any confusion.


>
>
> Anyway, just wanted to give my support for the 0.8.1.x versioning.
>
> Evan
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Chris Chabot <chabotc@google.com> wrote:
>
> > 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