[Pulp-dev] pulp_file 1.0

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Apr 22 15:31:28 UTC 2020

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


[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/CHANGES.rst


On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:59 AM David Davis <daviddavis at 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 <bmbouter at 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 <daviddavis at 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 at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200422/bebc210d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list