+1 to what Allen said.
Regarding 1.0, the main problem is backward compatibility expectations from
semantic versions. With so many languages supported in thrift, basically if
we ever make any breaking change from any of the language libraries we need
to bump the major version to comply with semver
Hi Jens -
First off, thank you so much for your work on Thrift. You've been a
consistent maintainer for as long as I've been a member of this community.
I think it's less a question about versions, and more about expectations.
Thrift has two major challenges: a wide language footprint (which mean
If the community wants to move to 1.0 I would support that.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:11 AM Jens Geyer wrote:
>
> Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> > Java and the compiler (for C#)
>
>
> Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full
> 0.16.1 indeed.
>
>
--
R
Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
Java and the compiler (for C#)
Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full
0.16.1 indeed.
January 9, 2016 7:48 PM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org ; jfarr...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
Great to hear that !
I have a few local WIP that would be valuable for the release but I
think I
can make it very soon.
One thing I want to propose is to use a different versioning scheme,
somet
a 0.9.4 rc
> the concept of a public "API" for Thrift is multifaceted
Indeed. I would categorize them by type of usages:
1. RPC users: use/implement generated service
2. serialization users: use generated struct (e.g. with Kafka)
3. advanced serialization users: directly call p
> the concept of a public "API" for Thrift is multifaceted
Indeed. I would categorize them by type of usages:
1. RPC users: use/implement generated service
2. serialization users: use generated struct (e.g. with Kafka)
3. advanced serialization users: directly call protocol write/readXxx (e.g.
pro
On 01/12/2016 05:09 AM, Aki Sukegawa wrote:
Speaking about versioning, semver mandates us a defined set of public API
that is covered by it.
As I don't think we can document every individual API, we need a set of
rules that can decide what belongs to public API.
For example, Protocol.readFieldEnd
om: Aki Sukegawa
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 3:17 AM
> To: dev@thrift.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
>
> conventional_changelog seems to have a lot of over-wrap with current JIRA
> based one.
> What is pros and cons of this ? Obvious ones are:
> pros:
&
nt content.
Have fun,
JensG
PS: Thanks for all the work done in the last weeks, Aki. Highly appreciated!
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
From: Aki Sukegawa
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 3:17 AM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
conventional_changelog seems to hav
,
> > I'm fine with either one.
> >
> > @Aki: The original plans were to release 1.0 after 0.9.3. I added
> > the 0.9.4 tag to JIRA, and that's how all of a sudden the plan
> > started to change ... ;-)
> >
> > Have fun,
> > JensG
> >
&g
RA, and that's how all of a sudden the plan
> started to change ... ;-)
>
> Have fun,
> JensG
>
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- From: Aki Sukegawa
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:48 PM
> To: dev@thrift.apache.org ; jfarr...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Thoug
closely, but they also take the whole thing more seriously,
> > > because obviously someone considered it being "ready to market".
> > >
> > > Last not least, I personally have no strong opinions about the
> > > numbering scheme (anymore), so whatever
ng scheme (anymore), so whatever decision we come up with,
> > I'm fine with either one.
> >
> > @Aki: The original plans were to release 1.0 after 0.9.3. I added
> > the 0.9.4 tag to JIRA, and that's how all of a sudden the plan
> > started to change ... ;-)
a sudden the plan
started to change ... ;-)
Have fun,
JensG
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- From: Aki Sukegawa
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:48 PM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org ; jfarr...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
Great to hear that !
I have a few local WIP that would be val
Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
From: Aki Sukegawa
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:48 PM
To: dev@thrift.apache.org ; jfarr...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
Great to hear that !
I have a few local WIP that would be valuable for the release but I think I
can make it very soon.
O
Great to hear that !
I have a few local WIP that would be valuable for the release but I think I
can make it very soon.
One thing I want to propose is to use a different versioning scheme,
something like 0.10.0.
Last time, I saw users complaining like "Why such a change for *patch*
release ??"
An
What does everyone think about cutting a 0.9.4 release candidate in the
next week or so?
-Jake
18 matches
Mail list logo
