[keycloak-dev] Node.js adapter releases

[Lance Ball]

I agree that keeping version numbers consistent might be questionable.
There is the big bump as Bruno notes, but also the npm modules need to be
able to publish in the absence of a keycloak release in the event that
there are bugs which need to be addressed in an adapter but not in keycloak
itself - e.g. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-2798.

Lance

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:

> +1 for consistency and release dates. But I'd keep the release version
> independent, move from 0.0.16 to 1.9.2 for example, is a huge bump.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We discussed this at the f2f and I believe we should keep it consistent
>> across all adapters.
>>
>> The decision was to have all adapters released when the server is
>> released and they will have the same version numbers. We will also make
>> sure release notes mark which adapters have changed and also which are
>> required to update (either due to compatibility changes or security related
>> fixes).
>>
>> So I'd like the ability to release nodejs adapters at the same time I do
>> the release of the server.
>>
>> We can certainly discuss changes to the above, but it should be
>> consistent for all our adapters.
>> On 11 Apr 2016 17:09, "Bruno Oliveira" <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning,
>>
>> Today I was chatting with Lance about the release cadence for Node.js
>> adapters.
>>
>> My initial idea was to release the adapters at exactly the same release
>> dates as the official Keycloak release in order to guarantee compatibility.
>> For critical/urgent patches, we just release those modules based on our
>> judgment.
>>
>> Lance would like more flexibility between those releases. For example,
>> release npm modules before the official release for situations where a user
>> wants some new capability that is perhaps unrelated to changes in KC
>> itself e.g. a move to promises.
>>
>> I don't have any problems on keeping Node.js adapters' release
>> independent from official KC release, but would like to hear more opinions
>> about it.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> -
>> abstractj
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-dev mailing list
>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160411/d60d43de/attachment.html