Everyone knows that 0.x == "unstable interfaces" and those willing to use 0.x (like me) do expect "hassle" when moving on to 1.0 and beyond. The 0.x to 1.x transition is extra unique as there are typically a lot less users than a 1.x to 2.x incompatibility jump. So, my recommendation is; Tackle all areas where incompatibility can improve the overall codebase. Postponing it only hurts more later.
Niclas On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:47 PM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi Otto, > > I would not like to start Semver exactly now ... and it doesn't help if we > start bumping major versions with every release. > > In the end this wouldn't really change anything. If we bump the major > version number it's still incompatible with the old one and we don't know > if anyone even cared about the incompatibility. And if we bump the major > version all the time people could be annoyed of us breaking things all the > time ;-) > > Chris > > > > > > Am 20.11.20, 15:32 schrieb "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>: > > or, we can follow versioning rules and have the ‘new kafka sink’ > trigger a > proper release that allows breaking backwards compatibility > > From: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > Reply: dev@plc4x.apache.org <dev@plc4x.apache.org> < > dev@plc4x.apache.org> > Date: November 20, 2020 at 06:08:51 > To: dev@plc4x.apache.org <dev@plc4x.apache.org> <dev@plc4x.apache.org> > Subject: [DISCUSS] How about changing the way we act on "backward > compatability"? > > Hi all, > > in a discussion with Ben on the Kafka Connect adapter. He was trying to > stay compatible with the past in order to not break anything with > existing > installations. As of know I don’t know of a single usage of it > anywhere. > > The thing is: we developed a lot of stuff and as of now we don’t really > know who is actually using what. And in the past I have seen multiple > times > that stuff I was thought to be used, actually couldn’t have and I was > wasting my energy in keeping things compatible while it would have been > better to change them. > > So how about we call out loud on all channels that we promise to pay > attention to parts we know are being used. And the only way we can know > about this, is if the companies actually tell us. > > I’d even call it out as “We are working hard on reaching the version > 1.0.0 > and for this we might want to clean up and change a few things”. > > This way we can assure we evolve the different parts as freely as > possible. > If someone complains that we broke something they were using, we’ve > got an > excuse and perhaps we’ll get more official statements about usage this > way? > > What do you think? > > Chris > >
