There's a balance between compatibility and introducing new features. As a young project, my feeling is that it is OK for Whirr to break compatibility between releases - until we reach version 1.0 (then it won't be allowed except between major version numbers). The fact that most (all?) of the Whirr service implementations live in the same tree, and that there are not many of them, makes this reasonable for users, since we make sure they get updated and tested. This is how we've been operating so far. However, this doesn't scale well so it's good to think about how we'd like to operate when there are more services.
Andrei, what would the impact be of your proposal on releases? Do we only ship services that compile (and pass tests) at the time of release? Or are you suggesting a separate release of services? Tom On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Andrei Savu <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, what do you think? Would it be useful to have some sort of > Manifest file for each service we add so that we can have the freedom > to evolve the core without being forced to update all the services? > > -- Andrei > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Andrei Savu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I like the sandbox concept, as this is more about them being >>>> unfinished then something that we wouldn't pull in. >>> >>> Yes and we should be able to change the core without having to update >>> all the services to support the new features (e.g rolling restarts, >>> reconfiguration). >>> >>> Should we add something like a supported list of Whirr capabilities >>> for each service? >> +1 >> >
