+1 to 1.0 On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:57 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 <bmbou...@redhat.com> > 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 <davidda...@redhat.com> >> 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 <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> 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 <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>> 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 <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev