[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox Aspects: Reworked website, quick-start guide and Hello world! demo
- From: Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:25:18 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20080421)
I was looking through the dev process doc (proposed update is at
and did not see anything obvious about limits on version numbers.
Personal opinion on my part says that if it is ready for prime time then
it should graduate and have a version that is >= 1.*. If it is not then
the version number should be <1.0. Really it is all about setting
expectations to the consumers. If you picked up something that was >=
1.0, you would expect it to be "ready to go". If you pick up something
that is incubating then you expect some rough edges. These two
conditions seem to be mutually exclusive.
In any event, Bjorn (cc'd) would certainly know if there is an actual
policy on this.
One thing that I did note however is that "Releases" have to go through
a release review. I'm suspecting that the Aspects stuff did not have a
formal release review. Correct? Assuming it did not, we need to either
have a review or reposition the current code as a Milestone or some
such. Again, this is about managing expectations. Our consumers expect
"releases" to have a certain level of IP cleanliness, testing, ... As a
community we have agreed that release reviews are part of ensuring that
that expectation is met.
Let me know what you want to do here.
p.s., my apologies for not cluing into this situation earlier.
Heiko Seeberger wrote:
Do you have a hint where I could ask whether 1.* might be an issue in
Am 14.06.2008 um 02:58 schrieb Jeff McAffer:
On a side note, I'm not 100% but there may be an issue with calling
the Aspects stuff 1.* when it is incubation.