Yes I agree, we might as well release trunk as 1.0.0. I am fixing the last few bugs in Jira, and then let's get started with the release :-). Support would be appreciated.
Damjan On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com> wrote: > Hello, > > @Gregory – many thanks for your input. You surely belong very valid points > to the discussion. > > The issue I see is that Apache Sanselan 0.97 has such a wide adoption in > the community that even in spite of the last public release being an > Incubator one, it has earned itself the status of a de-facto library for > image processing out there. It's quite mature and stable for the standard > use cases. IMHO, release 0.97 has the status and bearing of a release 1.0.0 > already. > > Want it or not, this means that you'll find yourself supporting the current > API baseline for quite some time ;-) Bear in mind that the Sanselan use > cases are typically quite static: once you've built your image processing > functionality into your app, it'll probably remain untouched for a long > time. So the user has some functional changes to make in your app, they > won't consider upgrading, let alone investing the effort to adapt their > code to an entirely new API just for the sake of it. > > So, in a nutshell, it seems adequate to publish the current trunk as > version 1.0.0, as folks are indeed already treating it as such out there. > > @Damjan – what's your take? I can support you these days if you decide to > push out 1.0.0 now! > > Regards, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source > Integration specialist > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Well as the only committer that's really working on the internals, I >> >> am wondering what to do myself now. >> >> >> >> I've been working on (and have almost finished) a very large change >> >> affecting virtually everything. When I commit it, the API will come >> >> apart at the seams :-/, and people will not be very happy with the >> >> rewrites of their own code they'll be doing. >> >> >> >> Which of the following would be best: >> >> 1. Releasing what is in SVN trunk now (maybe minus another API >> >> breaking change from a few months ago) as 1.0, then adding my large >> >> API-breaking change which will eventually be released as version 2.0. >> >> >> > >> > Remember that you'll have to change the package name and Maven >> coordinates >> > for 2.0. >> > >> >> The good news is that version 0.97 is in the old package name >> org.apache.sanselan. This means no jar hell for 1.0 >> (org.apache.commons.imaging) vs. 0.97. 1.0 which will co-exist with 0.97 in >> the same class loader. With option (1), upgrading from 0.97 to 1.0 will >> mean AT LEAST updating all package imports, not that bad. Make sure you >> write good release notes ;) >> >> Let me also offer a bit of perspective for your consideration. Releasing an >> option (1) 1.0 means supporting it to some extent on the ML and with >> possible maintenance releases. Since 2.0 is incompatible, do you really >> want to take on maintaining two large code bases (or three if you count >> 0.97)? Right now, there seems to be only one committer with deep domain >> knowledge, you ;) Another possibility -- your (3) -- would be to "flush >> out" another (last?) 0.x "release" to get trunk out there for 0.x users, >> then release 1.0 which would be the new API. It seems self-defeating to >> release a 1.0 knowing the API is not going to live going forward to 2.0. >> With option (2), you are saying, [imaging] has learned its lessons in >> alpha, it has now grown up to a 1.0-level releasable API. What I do not >> know is how close you are to the new API being done. >> >> In the end, you know the audience best and users that adopt a 0.x product >> should know that they are taking on a certain level of risk. In addition, >> no one is forcing them to update to 1.0. Since you are doing the work, I'll >> support your efforts with option (1). If you called for a [POLL] email on >> the user's ML, my guess is that users would be happy with a non-breaking >> 1.0 release. >> >> I know that our release process is painful, you might have seen discussions >> about it recently, but keep on going, it seems we are close. >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> > Gary >> > >> > >> >> 2. Adding my large change now and API-breaking everything in trunk, >> >> then releasing that as 1.0. >> >> 3. Releasing what is in SVN trunk now (maybe minus another API >> >> breaking change from a few months ago) as 0.98, then API-breaking >> >> everything, and then either releasing a 0.99 or 1.0. (This is probably >> >> the hardest option, and may not be possible, since version numbering >> >> of nightly builds will go backwards and JIRA bugs will need to be >> >> changed.) >> >> >> >> Thoughts? Preferences? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Damjan >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hello all, >> >> > >> >> > Are there any plans for releasing 1.0.0 soon? >> >> > >> >> > The last commit was 2 months old and the community will hands-down >> >> benefit >> >> > from a GA release that includes the bugfixes and code renames from >> >> Sanselan >> >> > to Commons Imaging, carried out ever since 0.9.7. >> >> > >> >> > Can I help in any way? We need the 1.0.0 release for our project to >> >> acquire >> >> > the fix for IMAGING-49 [1], and we cannot rely on SNAPSHOTs. >> >> > >> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-49 >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> >> > *Raúl Kripalani* >> >> > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open >> Source >> >> > Integration specialist >> >> > http://about.me/raulkripalani | >> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani >> >> > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition< >> http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> > Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition< >> http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
