I'd really like a more or less stable API for the 2.x releases. We have some custom resolvers, parsers and conflict-managers and I don't want to do a complete rewrite of these extensions everytime there is a new Ivy version.
I don't mind that the API changes a lot for new major releases, but I think we should do our best to keep the non-backwards-compatible API changes within the same major release to a minimum. Maarten ----- Original Message ---- From: Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:42:36 PM Subject: Re: Release plan (was Re: Steps toward graduation) 2007/6/18, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 6/18/07, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree with this : > > 2.0-alpha-2 : (bug fix + code cleaning) early-july > > 2.0-beta-1: (bug fix + code cleaning + tutorial) late august > > 2.0-RC1 (all major bug fixed + code cleaned + tutorial/doc updated) > > late septembre > > 2.0-RCx (all major bug fixed) every 2 weeks > > 2.0 final : october/november (why not exactly 1 year after the vote > > that accepted ivy in the incubator project) > > > > However, I'm still thinking that we should give us more time before > > publishing an API. I think we could draft it, collect feedback from > > it, but not yet release it. My prefference would be to do a complete > > API in a 3.0. > > > I think it's a matter of words. I would like to get in the 2.0 version at > least a statement saying what is considered public in the API, and thus for > which we will maintain backward compatiblity in 2.x versions. Even if this > is a very minimal scope. To get a clean and reviewed API, I think we agree > that we'd need to call it a 3.0 version. So I see no problem with breaking > even things we'd agree to say it's public in 2.0. But I think being able to > at least run a resolve from the API with confidence of stability for > the 2.xstream is not a huge work and would help some users. > I see your point. Having a 2.0 also usable as a library with a minimal API would be nice. However, I'm not sure that offering something and saying "it's minimal, and we already have in mind to change it in 3.0" is a good idea. (I exagerate maybe a litle bit, but that's the impression that I have). What does the other people on this list think. -- Gilles SCOKART ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
