On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:07 PM Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote:
> Hi, > > let me wear the project manager hat for a moment. > let me too, because the fact that I'm younger does not mean I don't know, right? :) > > Am 19.06.2018 um 10:59 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com > >: > > Hi, > > About why 1.1.1 and not 1.2.0. It’s not about cheap or not, but about > semantics :) > > > for me „caring about semantics“ is just one of the top ten justifications > developers use for the changes they did. > Maybe, and putting the hat of project manager is usually a justification for somebody that is not good at technical stuff. But I know that's not like it, so please let's not enter into this, I've felt a little insulted by this comment... > > We can agree that there is no hard rule on versionning, do we? But I try > to follow the following guidelines (delta my own interpretation that adds > some subjectivity :P) > - Major Version will change when we break backwards compatibility > - Minor Version will change when new features are added > - Otherwise, patch version will change. > > There is only one hard rule for me and that is knowing about the risk to > take. > That's a matter of conventions. We agree that version 1.1.x is compatible with 1.1.y. > So if we take the patch version it should only include important bug fixes > and nothing else. I would argue that only #864, #862, #858 and #854 qualify > for such a patch if at all. > So they are to my view. They should not introduce any compatibility issue. And if they do, that's an error, but we are too few helping here, doing our best... > Not sure about #860 because the title is not specific enough. > Please, I'll let you judge it for yourself https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/pull/860/files But to me that change applies to patch. It actually fixes a compatibility issue that was introduced in 1.1.0. > The point for me is that I want my project to rely on something like 1.1.x > because I don’t want anything to change that breaks my software. And I can > tell you that most developers underestimate the side-effects of changes. > I'm well aware of this. But do you have a concrete issue? > > So I don’t assign a new version number regarding the number of changes but > about what they mean... > > > To mean they mean it is a risk to use that version and you define how big > that is. > We are trying to do weekly releases, we could do better but again. I can count with my hand fingers people contributing with actual commits and issues in the issue tracker. > > Now, I considered myself this release as a patch because mostly little > bugs here and there were fixed. > Moreover, one of the changes done in the credentials manager was to > *recover* some backwards compatibility for people setting up credentials in > settings files. > Of course, to this we add to this that my own interpretation saying that > the changes do not break compatibility nor add features :) > > You see you said „mostly bugs“ and that is the error already. > I'm sorry for not being perfect... > I mean we come from an amateurish behaviour that we change released > artefacts. > I assure you I do my best on it, and I'm one of the first that cries aloud when there are versionning and dependencies problems. What I do not understand if this mail was meant as a lesson for the community or should I take it personally... > That is not discussable just a no-go. > I know and I'm against it. So we agree, right? > The reason was it would have wasted a huge amount of time to do a new > version. So ok it was a loose-loose situation. Now we can do it better and > I want something far less amateurish. So you can discuss your semantics > about what major and minor versions in pharo mean but patch needs to be the > definition of the combination: least risk - highest value. > Would you help us measuring the risk? > > Now, this is the kind of subjective topic that starts a flamewar, but I’d > prefer to use my time on somewhat else ^^. > > > You may not like to talk about these things but I do. And you should > listen. > I mostly do [enjoy such discussions] but what I learn from this discussion is: - you think I'm stupid, or young, or both, so I don't know - we are all amateurs > I have no use for an environment where people only care about coding new > cool stuff. > I'm fu*** trying to make Iceberg as stable as possible, If I was just wanting to do new cool stuff I would not be doing this.
