I vote for 1.0 as soon as possible. Seems stable to me. I'm working on a chat application and when we moved to fully lazy sequences, still none of my code broke.
I vote no on making contrib the "Standard Library." The Java Standard Library is large enough. I would like contrib to be easier to get though. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I would love to see 1.0, and the sooner the better. At Relevance we > are doing real work in Clojure today. > > As for wish list I would love to see improvements to the development > process: > > * move from svn to git > * move regression tests from contrib into clojure itself > > But neither of these need necessarily to block 1.0 IMO. > > When I release software that depends on Clojure I pin it to a commit > number, not to a named release. For me the named release is more about > public recognition than anything else. > > Cheers, > Stu > > P.S. Git is to svn as functional languages are to mutable languages. > Git repositories are immutable data structures, and repos-local > pointers such as HEAD are like atoms. It would be interesting to see > Clojure's data structures have a canonicalized serialization and play > around with content addressability. > > > When we release software that depends on Clojure we don't care about > > numbered releases at all -- we will run regression tests of our own > > production app against the Clojure and contrib repositories and pin > > our releases to a commit number, not a specif > > > > > > People (and not just book authors :) often ask - whither 1.0? [Ok, > > maybe they don't use 'whither']. The fact remains, some people want a > > 1.0 designation, and I'm not unwilling, providing we as a community > > can come to an understanding as to what that means, the process it > > implies, and the work it will require (and who will do it). Here are > > some of the relevant issues, IMO: > > > > - Stability/completeness/robustness > > > > This is mostly about - does it work? Is it relatively free of bugs? Is > > it free of gaping holes in core functionality? I think Clojure is in a > > pretty good place right now, but am obviously biased. This in no way > > implies there isn't room for improvement. > > > > - API stability > > > > With the semantic changes of fully lazy sequences behind us, I think > > the syntax and semantics of existing functions is largely stable. > > > > - Development process stability > > > > Currently all new work (fixes and enhancements) occurs in trunk. > > There's no way to get fixes without also getting enhancements. I think > > this is the major missing piece in offering stable numbered releases. > > While I've cut a branch for each of the prior two releases, no one has > > ever submitted a bugfix patch for either. If people are going to want > > to work with a particular release version for an extended period of > > time, someone (other than me) will have to produce patches of (only!) > > fixes from the trunk for the release branch, and occasionally produce > > point releases (1.0.x) from that branch. I'd like to continue to do > > the bulk of my work in trunk, without messing anyone up or forcing > > everyone to follow along. > > > > - Freedom from change > > > > Numbered releases are most definitely not about absence of change in > > general. There are more things I want to add and change, and there > > will be for some time. That will keep Clojure a living language. 1.0 > > or any numbered release can't and won't constitute a promise of no > > further change. But there are different kinds of change, changes that > > fix bugs and changes that add new capabilities or break existing code. > > People need to be able to choose the type of change they can tolerate, > > and when to incur it. > > > > - Perception > > > > Obviously, a 1.0 designation impacts perception. I am not interested > > in pursuing it just to influence perception, but rather to > > (collectively) acknowledge a milestone in usability and stability. > > However there may be other perceptions, good/bad or simply wrong (e.g. > > that Clojure is "finished"). Will the general perception engendered > > by 1.0 be met in the large, or a mismatch? > > > > What does 1.0 mean to you? Are we there yet? Any recommendations for > > the organization of the release branches, patch policy etc? > > > > Feedback welcome, > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > -- John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
