People have maturity expectations associated with a 1.0 release. So yes, my vote to do a release might be +1 while my vote for doing the same release as 1.0 might be -1 because I do not want to mislead the public.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:32 PM James E. King III <[email protected]> wrote: > > To do this we need to retire the autoconf build and make the cmake > environment as prolific as autoconf is, and be able to run cross tests on > Windows. That's a lot to ask, and we need to release at least twice in the > upcoming year, and three times in the next. No more once-per-year or more > releases, We have folks interested and engaged and we need to help them > contribute as much as possible. > > Votes aren't supposed to have conditions - do they? :) > > - Jim > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:48 AM Randy Abernethy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am very pro the 1.0 moniker on the next release. However I would put > > a few key criteria on it. Without these things I would be a strong -1. > > Here's my list: > > > > 1. A single build system and no trace of a duplicate/confusing second > > system (e.g. cmake everywhere) > > 2. No claims of support for anything that does not have a passing cross > > test > > 3. TBinaryProtocol support everywhere > > 4. A published specification for the RPC protocol > > 5. 0 or close to 0 open bug jira issues (there are over 300 right now) > > > > Each of these is tied to this statement at the top of the Thrift home page: > > > > "The Apache Thrift software framework, for scalable cross-language > > services development, combines a software stack with a code generation > > engine to build services that work efficiently and seamlessly between > > C++, Java, Python, PHP, Ruby, Erlang, Perl, Haskell, C#, Cocoa, > > JavaScript, Node.js, Smalltalk, OCaml and Delphi and other languages." > > > > I would expect a 1.0 project to have few if any known bugs, to be > > fairly simple to build, to be specified and to do what is says (cross > > platform rpc), which must be born out in tests. > > > > A 1.0 release is a great goal. > > > > --Randy > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:27 AM James E. King III <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I'd like us to consider the next version number to be 1.0. The project > > is > > > mature enough, and some folks won't want a version 0.13. There are > > already > > > a number of accumulated breaking changes in interfaces of the C++, > > > JavaScript, and Java libraries. C++ especially, with the break away from > > > C++03 and boost as a link-time dependency has allowed us to change our > > code > > > significantly interface-wise. In js/node.js we not have correct 64-bit > > > integer handling. Of course, the wire protocol is still backwards > > > compatible. None of that has changed (not to my awareness). These > > changes > > > are documented in the top level CHANGES.md and in each language's > > README.md > > > file. > > > > > > Let's vote. > > > > > > [ ] +1 Next version number is 1.0. > > > [ ] 0 Don't care > > > [ ] -1 Next version number is 0.13. > > > > > > Voting ends in 72 hours, Friday January 18 at 13:00 UTC. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > Randy Abernethy > > Managing Partner > > RX-M, LLC > > [email protected] > > o 415-800-2922 > > c 415-624-6447 > > -- -- Randy Abernethy Managing Partner RX-M, LLC [email protected] o 415-800-2922 c 415-624-6447
