couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 0.9.1
Date Tue, 05 May 2009 03:57:43 GMT
Chris Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Noah Slater wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:32:04PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Are we ready for 0.9.1? My pet patch is in and backported, how about
>>>> yours?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Mine are done.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Prefacing with: Version names are called $(MAJOR).$(MINOR).$(REVISION)
>>
>> I am so confused!
>>
>> Damien convinced me pretty well that $(REVISION) numbers should only get
>> bumped when we're backporting a fix for a bug that shouldn't be in that
>> $(MINOR) version number. Ie, end user code wouldn't have to change. I'm
>> definitely guilty of backporting code that would break client code based on
>> error reporting strictness etc, but adding new features definitely seems
>> greater than $(REVISION) changing importance.
>>
>> So, I feel that I'm entirely over-thinking this entire issue, but at the
>> moment I'd probably lean towards releasing 0.10.0 from trunk as opposed to a
>> new $(REVISION) release. Either way we should probably try and codify the
>> rules for backporting and put up a wiki page with some guidance on when we
>> do what. My first litmus test is "If it's visible from a client library
>> perspective, it's at least a $(MINOR) revision change without overwhelming
>> support."
>>
>>     
>
> I think we're pretty clearly not ready for 0.10.0
>
> If there's breaking changes between 0.9.0 and the 0.9.x branch, they
> should be reverted, as some users may decide to track the 0.9.x branch
> to avoid just those as they appear in trunk.
>
>   
This is definitely one of those "No matter what you decide, someone will 
be upset" type of conversations. Seeing as I don't generally run 
anything less than trunk I'm not overly invested, but I don't want to 
irritate anyone that's following with any specific version.

That said, what keeps us from 0.10? I did contemplate the the jump from 
0.9 isn't as big as the jump from 0.8. Though, I would probably say that 
the jump from 0.8 to 0.9 was fairly delayed. At the moment there are at 
least three new features: config.d updates, bulk=ok, and the reduce 
warnings; none of which seem like only a $(REVISON) change. To me that 
doesn't seem like something to ignore but I would be perfectly happy 
referring to version numbers via subversion revision so I'm a bit not 
normal on that front.

Just to restate, I don't really care except to minimize work for Noah on 
the release aspect and to have some publicly visible logic in what goes 
in a $(MINOR) vs. $(REVISION) branch so people know what to expect.

HTH,
Paul Davis
>> Anyway, that's just my two hundredths of a greenback.
>>
>> Paul Davis
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


Mime
View raw message