I was keen at one point to move forward to 1.0 as well. But I feel we probably need to do something a bit more thorough in terms of reviewing whether things are ready or not, so that we release 1.0 without any major concerns in terms of Apache's reputation etc. Perhaps I am overthinking that... perhaps '1.0' is not such a big deal in terms of being different to '0.x'
Example: We discussed at one point the potential security risks associated with using innerHTML in some code, for example and that other frameworks avoid that (React requires that a dev use a method called dangerouslySetInnerHTML or something like that). The risk is not high of exploiting that perhaps, but it is not considered best practice to do that and for some formal security audits, I believe it would cause an application built with Royale to fail. At the time of the earlier discussions there was no outcome aside from general agreement that we don't cause applications to be vulnerable, iirc. So for things like this, I think it would be good to sort of have our own 'audit' relative to best practices/other frameworks (and I don't know what all of those are). Like I said, maybe I am overthinking it.... happy to run with whatever others decide in the end. On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:27 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > (FWIW, I don’t personally see a reason to not up it to 1.0.) > > > On Dec 7, 2021, at 9:24 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have 3 1/2 Royale apps in production. Some for years as well. > > > > It’s definitely production ready. > > > >> On Dec 7, 2021, at 9:20 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Good point Alex! Prominic's MyAccount app is in production for about 2 > >> years now and it is still evolving. :) > >> > >> wt., 7 gru 2021 o 20:02 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> > napisał(a): > >> > >>> FWIW, way back, I wanted to hold off on a 1.0 until some Royale apps > were > >>> actually in production. I think this is now the case, so what else > keeps > >>> us from a 1.0 version? > >>> > >>> -Alex > >>> > >>> On 12/7/21, 10:05 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Or even 0.10.0, 0.11.0, etc. would be fine too. No part of the > >>> major.minor.revision version code is strictly constrained to 0-9 > only. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Josh Tynjala > >>> Bowler Hat LLC < > >>> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cca220d20dc9a4198260108d9b9ac0b3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637744971437180957%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=7omox%2FoGgSIqZVuYtDTxjPs%2BXzFBO%2FRg%2FsMLjRQw8J4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:16 AM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Sounds good to me. I assume there is no reason that we cannot have > >>> 0.9.10, > >>>> 0.9.11 if we need to before 1.0, but I don't know about the > >>> 'automatic' > >>>> setting to 1.0. > >>>> > >>>> I'd also suggest that it might be easier to wait until January, > >>> because a > >>>> number of us will be affected in the coming weeks with holidays etc. > >>>> > >>>> At some point I will volunteer for the release process, but I do > >>> need to be > >>>> focused on the compiler and framework for the next couple of > >>>> months, instead of learning new things. I'll do what I can to support > >>>> anyone working on the release, though. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:48 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> > >>>>> I think there is enough to start a new release. Are there any > >>> volunteers? > >>>>> If we release 0.9.9 the next version will automatically (I think > >>> be set) > >>>> to > >>>>> 1.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we ready for that? > >>>>> > >>>>> Appreciate your thoughts. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Piotr Zarzycki > > > >
