aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alasdair Nottingham <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Date Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:58:32 GMT
I think the only component in aries I think could be marked as 1.0 in
the first release is the blueprint component. However I would like to
see a discussion about how versioning works, whether we keep it in
lock step or independently versioned, and linked to this whether the
sub-components can be released independently of each other before we
ship blueprint at 1.0 and everything else at 0.1

I don't know how long this discussion would take, but I wouldn't want
to hold up a first release for a long time to have the discussion
since it only affects a single component at this time.


2010/1/27 Alan D. Cabrera <>:
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
>> I would not like to do a 1.0 release of components that implement an
>> OSGi spec, but have not passed compliance. Since a lot of the
>> specifications are not yet final we should not be releasing 1.0
>> implementations of those specification.
> Makes sense to me.
>> This doesn't apply to blueprint since the spec is final, but for the
>> other components I think we should stick with 0.1 for now. I do not
>> have a strong opinion on using separate versioning for the components
>> right now, but I do think it might make sense for our first release to
>> be consistent across components.
> So for blueprint it should be 1.0 and the others 0.1?
> Regards,
> Alan
>> Alasdair
>> 2010/1/27 Alan D. Cabrera <>:
>>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>> There's been a lot of activity lately so I'd like to propose we do a
>>>> release so we can get some wider user feedback. I think we should give
>>>> it a version of 0.1 and stick to versions <1 while we're in the
>>>> Incubator.
>>> I'm in favor of a release but prefer to call it 1.0.  Why does it matter
>>> that we're in the incubator?  Just curious.
>>>> Then there is the question of whether to independently version the
>>>> high level modules or keep them lock-step. For now I think we should
>>>> keep them lock-step until we feel a need to change that.
>>> I think that there's a strong chance that we will have patch releases
>>> that
>>> would affect only one module.  I think it would be odd and confusing if
>>> the
>>> versions for the other modules were incremented as well, especially since
>>> not all the modules will always be consumed together.
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>> --
>> Alasdair Nottingham

Alasdair Nottingham

View raw message