Part of my underlying concern is one of branding and not directly based on concerns about measuring and/or quantifying the quality of an ecosystem.
I fully recognize that we could call the next iteration of Clojure "2.0" and would be well within our rights. My point has been that calling it 2.0 may give people the impression that developing in the language is seamless and well-polished. When they find out that it's not, Clojure may experience some backlash. (What's more, if Clojure wants to continue adding backwards-incompatible features at the same rate that it is now, it would not be advisable to bump the major version just yet.) That said, I don't have a real problem saying the language itself is 2.0-worthy. David On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 11:45 -0500, Dennis Crenshaw wrote: > What makes an ecosystem '1.x' vs '2.x' etc. needs to be quantifiable > to make a standard out of it. To quote Peter Drucker, "What gets > measured gets managed." Are there any solid examples of languages that > would constitute a good canonical spectrum for ecosystem versions and > why? > > It seems like if the ecosystem surrounding a language is another > concern in the semantic versioning equation that can't be sufficiently > be expressed by the existing scheme, there should be a another > digit(s) or a whole other semantic version system for it (e.g. 1.2.0.0 > or perhaps 0.1.0_2.0.0 for Clojure 2.0 with a basic, whatever that may > mean, ecosystem surrounding it.) > > My points may also be a moot point, since it seems to make this SemVer > compatible we might have to call it SemVer 1.1.0, or 2.0 depending on > how people thought the extra digit(s) would affect the compatibility > with the SemVer spec as it stands. (Is it SemVer 1.0.0 right now?) > > All this being said, I like the idea of semantic versioning and I wish > more languages/software at least attempted some sort of version number > scheme transparency. #(+ 1 %) to semantic versioning. > > TL;DR Can an ecosystem be properly versioned? Can that version be > cleanly expressed by the current SemVer scheme? > -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
