[Pulp-dev] pulp_file 1.0

[Ina Panova]

Based on the extended reply from David referring to semver, I am in favour
or releasing pulp_file 1.0.

Also, comments inline.
--------
Regards,

Ina Panova
Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."


On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:02 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.
>

Brian, this is a kind of chicken and the egg problem. Let's be fair and
answer - how many folks will deploy something that is 0.y.z and not
production ready?
Not a lot of folks will deploy it in the production unless we release and
say - this is stable enough for production use. Only after that we will
have enough numbers to fairly say if it is low/high/medium risk software.


> 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>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> production.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/CHANGES.rst
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200427/3a53bcf7/attachment.htm>