Re: [aerogear-dev] Versioning x Roadmap x Jiras puzzle

On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > Good morning all, today I was thinking about a problem that the other > projects might face with. > > Our versioning policy is pretty straightforward > http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/reference/AeroGearVersioningPolicy/ and > to me makes sense. Here comes the problem, as you know > aerogear-security-shiro was released and would be crazy to start with > 1.0.x, for this reason I started with 0.1.0. Question: > > - Where 0.1.0 release should be into the roadmap? > http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearSecurity/ I think of aerogear-security-picketlink and aerogear-security-shiro as adapters to aerogear-security. So for the AeroGear Security roadmap, i would think the shiro "adapter" should go under 1.X.0 since it's a new feature

> > Might be confusing if we just add 0.1.0 into the roadmap. > > - How to properly file jiras? > The correct would be 0.1.0 for jiras associated with > aerogear-security-shiro, but might be very confusing for newcomers when > they start to look at our roadmap. > I think for filling JIRA's, we might just want to stick with the umbrella aerogear-security numbers, or else create a new sub projects for these

> - In the situation where you must bump the minor release, for example > aerogear-security 1.0.2. What's the appropriate approach to follow? > Create a new release on Jira and update the roadmap? > > I'm asking these questions because is impossible our components have the > same version of the others with projects growth. > -- > abstractj > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev