[Pulp-dev] pulp_file 1.0
daviddavis at redhat.com
Thu Apr 23 11:15:33 UTC 2020
Sounds good, thank you for the feedback.
If anyone has feedback, the deadline is April 27, 2020.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:01 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at 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.
> 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 <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> 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 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
>>  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>
>>> 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?
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:57 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>> Feedback welcome. I'll set a deadline of April 27, 2020.
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev