Based on the extended reply from David referring to semver, I am in favour or releasing pulp_file 1.0.
Also, comments inline. -------- Regards, Ina Panova Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:02 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > tl;dr we follow semver.org and I agree with your reasoning, so I'm > convinced 1.0 would be fine. While I'm not in favor of the change, I'm > ready to disagree and commit. > > In the interests of sharing perspectives, here's mine. The issue with > semver.org is that it's exclusively focused on change management, and it > ignores what I perceive as a cultural association with > 1.0 software to > mean "broadly tested and low risk". Is pulp_file at a point where backwards > compatibility is a primary concern and prohibited yes. Do the developers of > pulp_file recommend it to be run in production, yes. As a user, is it a low > risk software due to many folks having already deployed it in production, > no. In fact pulp_file is maybe in the high to medium risk category based on > the number of folks who are actually running it in production. > Brian, this is a kind of chicken and the egg problem. Let's be fair and answer - how many folks will deploy something that is 0.y.z and not production ready? Not a lot of folks will deploy it in the production unless we release and say - this is stable enough for production use. Only after that we will have enough numbers to fairly say if it is low/high/medium risk software. > Having said all that, I'm ready to support your proposal on the semver > basis. Your reasoning is sound. Thank you for writing your thoughts here > and your effort to make it great. > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I want to expound on my own reasoning behind why pulp_file should be >> bumped to 1.0 because I realize my original email was probably too brief >> and I apologize for that. >> >> The thing that I would refer to is semver.org which we've used as a >> guide for versioning. semver.org defines a 0.Y release as: >> >> Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY >> change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable. >> >> Moreover, semver.org has this question/answer: >> >> How do I know when to release 1.0.0? >> >> If your software is being used in production, it should probably >> already be 1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to >> depend, you should be 1.0.0. If you’re worrying a lot about backwards >> compatibility, you should probably already be 1.0.0. >> >> I think we meet both of these criteria. I expect that Pulp users are >> probably using pulp_file in production already. In terms of its API, we've >> had only two small features in the last couple releases of pulp_file since >> 0.1.0[0] and no major changes to the public API (there was the rename of >> one field). I don't foresee any major changes to the public api anytime >> soon. There's not a roadmap for new features either and certainly nothing I >> see that could cause major changes to pulp_file's API. >> >> I think that in this context it makes sense to bump it to 1.0 to >> communicate to our users that the pulp_file API is stable enough to use in >> production. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/CHANGES.rst >> >> David >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:59 AM David Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I feel differently especially when considering that most other Pulp >>> plugins are at > 1.0. Can you explain why you think pulp_file shouldn't be >>> at 1.0? >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:57 AM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've seen software live in the < 1.0 area for a long time and graduate >>>> when it's in broad, production use. That's a difficult thing to assess >>>> accurately, but to me, pulp_file hasn't reached that point. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Davis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> With the next release of pulp_file, I'd propose we bump the version to >>>>> 1.0. The pulp_file plugin has reached a level of maturity and stability >>>>> that I think it could be considered production-ready. I've opened a PR to >>>>> bump the version to 1.0.0: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/380 >>>>> >>>>> Feedback welcome. I'll set a deadline of April 27, 2020. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
