commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [JEXL] Jexl 2.1?
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:19:31 GMT
On 2 December 2011 17:52, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. to release early, release often.

But I hope we don't want to break user applications.

> Go for v3, seems simplest.

Simpler for whom?

We could always release major versions with package and Maven id
changes, and then compatibility issues would be irrelevant.

However, would most end users want that?
(JDBC versions, anyone?)

Assuming that there are many more users of the code than there are
developers, then I think the developers owe it to the users not to
break things unnecessarily.
Particularly for projects such as Commons, which are generally only a
small part of a larger application.
Projects like Tomcat or JMeter which are largely self-contained can
afford to make many more internal changes, but they still need to
ensure upwards compatibility as far as possible.

> If someone really wants fixes in 2.x, then you release from the branch.

The reason I started on this was to see if we could tweak the code
sufficiently to avoid having to do a major version release.
I think we are nearly there.

So yes, more work for the developers, but a lot less hassle for most end users.

> Gary
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:27 PM, henrib <henrib@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I've done the same thing and been pushing JEXL snapshots for sometime to
>> avoid the unpleasant moment, so unpleasant that I've procrastinated enough
>> to now have to consider alternatives.
>> I find disturbing that committers fear to release and that goodwill to
>> share
>> features and code is killed by the process that should help publish them -
>> not oppose them!
>>
>> I agree that a "release early, release often" scheme would help but I've no
>> idea how to achieve this without a "release faster" mean.
>>
>> However, I ultimately suspect that the vested interest of some in promoting
>> a hard, difficult and lengthy process relates to how their bills get payed
>> and by whom; there is a huge difference in those of us doing this as a
>> "goodwill hobby" - so to speak - because we feel it is good ethics to
>> contribute back and those who make a living from it. Can't blame them for
>> making sure their fees stay high by ensuring "hobbyists" don't get too
>> efficient! (just kidding :-))
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Henrib
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/JEXL-Jexl-2-1-tp4147180p4148135.html
>> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message