Hi Rich, Every decision is a balance and will have good and bad aspects, of course.
In the good aspects of releasing a 1.0 quickly, is the fact that (coupled with Stu's book release) I can try to more succesfully promote clojure internally in my company (Ah, these psychological issues ;-). In the bad aspects, are of course, some things I would like to see more "polished" before releasing a 1.0. By "polished", I don't necessary am asking for still adding more functionality, but cleaning up things here and there. Especially, removing complexity where it's not needed would be good, because it eases the learning curve for newcomers. I'm thinking here of the ns <-> lib somewhat unneeded distinction, which may cause newcomers halt to think about it for (I think) no good reason. Something like : "Wait, in the ns doc, they speak about something called a "lib-spec". Lib definitely looks like the prefix of "library", so there must be the concept of "library" in clojure. Where is it ? ... search ... search ... search .... well it doesn't seem to me that there is stuff related to library in a way that it differs from stuff related to namespaces .... think ... think ... think ... is it me that doesn't understand something ? ... think ... think ... is it just over engineering ....". Multiply the above thoughts by the number of newcomers. If I'm right, I am candidate to submit patches for removing "lib-spec" from clojure source, clojure-contrib and wiki documentation. Regards, -- Laurent 2009/4/16 Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> > > 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 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
