<div dir="ltr">+1 for option 2. Starting with the current 1.4.0 version for each component. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 February 2015 at 15:35, Bruno Oliveira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruno@abstractj.org" target="_blank">bruno@abstractj.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good morning, I'm doing some housekeeping on AGSEC and would like to<br>
know what works best for you.<br>
<br>
For the further releases and for the sake of sanity at the roadmap, I'm<br>
separating the security releases by component:<br>
<br>
- Crypto<br>
- Sync<br>
- OTP<br>
- push<br>
- OAuth2<br>
- offline<br>
<br>
They are pretty much "virtual" because it project follows its own<br>
release process and I just want to group by feature. For versioning what<br>
would be better for you:<br>
<br>
1. Versioning from scratch which pretty much means each component starts<br>
with 0.0.1 and we increase accordingly with the progress.<br>
<br>
2. Follow the Security roadmap versioning<br>
(<a href="https://aerogear.org/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearSecurity/" target="_blank">https://aerogear.org/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearSecurity/</a>). Which<br>
means each component starting with 1.4.0 and increasing each one<br>
independesing.<br>
<br>
3. Follow each project versioning which means:<br>
- sync: follows the same versioning for the sync server<br>
- push: same versioning from the push server<br>
Note: the idea would fail badly for OAuth2, Crypto and OTP<br>
<br>
I'd vote for 2 to prevent confusion.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
abstractj<br>
PGP: 0x84DC9914<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>