On Jun 13, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org> 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@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev