shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Chabot <chab...@google.com>
Subject Re: Proposal To Branch for 1.0 Today
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:32:34 GMT
Hey Travis,

The goal of shindig is always to support the latest version, and the current
svn trunk (and release branch) fully supports 0.8.1, plus some extra's that
will be a part of 0.9 (templating, proxied content, etc).

Personally I think the "hoo-ha" around the versioning is a good thing, this
is the first time we're doing a incubator release, and whatever we pick now
will likely be our standard as long as shindig exists, so it's worth taking
some time for and discussing.

Part of the discussions is also around documentation, wiki, site etc... and
that will definitely be the place where we'll document which releases
support which spec level (and/or which parts are missing or additional to
the spec), and we'll include that information in the release announcement
and readme file too.



On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Travis Winters <
travis.winters@cogentconsulting.com.au> wrote:

> Also being (very) new to Shindig, the hoo-ha regarding versioning is a
> shame.
> Failing to tag _any_ releases (alpha's or whatever) and including a README
> document which indicates how much of the OpenSocial spec is covered in
> that release and what wasn't covered would have been very helpful.
>
> I understand that you're going to branch for a 1.0-sounding release, but
> even
> then -- how much of the OpenSocial 0.8.1 spec is that going to support?
>
> To me that is what is really useful. At least it would show intent.
>
>
>
> On 04/12/2008, at 5:55 PM, Ben Smith wrote:
>
>  On 4 Dec 2008, at 05:09, Dan Peterson wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Responses below. Again, I don't feel too strongly ("slavish" may be a
>>>> slightly strong characterization of my points), but I'm not seeing big
>>>> benefits in the short term to major releases independent of spec
>>>> revisions.
>>>>
>>>> The cost of maintaining a release can easily outweigh the benefits of
>>>> releasing a new architecture earlier, when there is likely a spec rev
>>>> coming
>>>> up in a few months. I wouldn't tie down the versions but I do see
>>>> benefits
>>>> in starting with Opensocial Spec Version == Shindig version.
>>>>
>>>> Still happy to support the will of the group on this one - just wanted
>>>> to
>>>> make sure that these points were heard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As stated earlier in this thread, my stance is similar to Evan's -- I
>>> worry
>>> that we're going to confuse people by *starting off* with a Shindig
>>> version
>>> that is inflated ahead of the version of the OpenSocial spec. I agree
>>> that
>>> we'd probably not want to hold the Shindig version to be similar to the
>>> OpenSocial spec version in perpetuity.
>>>
>>> That all said, however, if we're the minority, we should simply move on
>>> wrap
>>> up this release. Having stable releases at all is a really important
>>> milestone for Shindig's success.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>
>> I thought I might proffer my 2 cents as I'm new to Shindig and know what
>> was confusing and what wasn't.
>>
>> I did not expect the Shindig version to match the Spec version. I did have
>> a look in the available README files, and would hope that this kind of
>> information would be explicate there, but in the absence of release notes I
>> just assumed the latest.
>>
>> I agree with Dan that starting off with the Spec version and then slowly
>> divorcing from it would be bonkers.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>> Ben Smith
>> BBC
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Travis Winters
>
> e travis.winters@cogentconsulting.com.au
> w http://www.cogentconsulting.com.au/
> m 0412 373 167
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message