Versions, patches and limited resources (was: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc)

[Jens Geyer <je...@apache.org>]

Hi,

we have received all in one week

  * a request to release an updated 0.9.1 (!)

  * a request to release 0.15.1 for one minor Java change

  * a request to release 0.16.1 for one minor compiler code change

That raises two questions:

     a) again if we should continue with 0.x as before or if it may be 
time to switch to 1.x

     b) how is it supposed to work out in the first place.

It's not that I don't want to provide the patches, and to me its a good 
sign that there is obviously enough people out therw who like what we 
are doing here. But like everyone elses my time is limited as well. And 
I have a strong feeling that once we open that door, we come to weekly 
releases very soon, which would then be a fulltime job.

Bottom line: Everybody wants an update, but nobody wants to do it - 
understandable, because the whole process is time consuming.

What we could do to fix the urgent needs, except for 0.9.1 provide only 
those packages that was asked for, i.e Java and the compiler (for C#). 
But again, the current approach does not scale.

JensG




Am 09.01.2016 um 22:12 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> Hi,
>
> In general, I'm a proponent of more frequent releases. We had some 
> mails last year and the consensus that I remember was to have 
> something around 3 or 4 releases per year would be the optimum 
> (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> How we number them ... well, as a matter of fact, Thrift is already 
> widely used in production. The languages on the market and their 
> capabilities are constantly changing and will continue to do so, and 
> so is Thrift, because of it's very nature of being a 
> connectivity-enabling framework. So more than with most other 
> software, there will never be /the/ one, 100% complete and 100% final 
> Thrift version, because things change and Thrift needs to be 
> constantly adapted.
>
> Version numbers around 1.0 are more a kind of a psychological thing: 
> Below 1.0, the project devs have more freedom with what they do, 
> because "the product is not final". So you kinda fly under the radar. 
> This changes with >= 1.0 and after. People are now looking more 
> closely, but they also take the whole thing more seriously, because 
> obviously someone considered it being "ready to market".
>
> Last not least, I personally have no strong opinions about the 
> numbering scheme (anymore), so whatever decision we come up with, I'm 
> fine with either one.
>
> @Aki: The original plans were to release 1.0 after 0.9.3. I added the 
> 0.9.4 tag to JIRA, and that's how all of a sudden the plan started to 
> change ... ;-)
>
> Have fun,
> JensG
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Aki Sukegawa
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:48 PM
> To: dev@thrift.apache.org ; jfarrell@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc
>
> Great to hear that !
> I have a few local WIP that would be valuable for the release but I 
> think I
> can make it very soon.
>
> One thing I want to propose is to use a different versioning scheme,
> something like 0.10.0.
>
> Last time, I saw users complaining like "Why such a change for *patch*
> release ??"
> And this time we have quite a few behavior changes like wire-format for
> certain language+protocols or default generator flags for a language.
> So 0.9.4 would induce wrong expectation among users.
>
> I understand the original intention of 0.9.x series and glad we're almost
> finishing this.
> But if a different scheme communicates the release content better, 
> isn't it
> worth compromising last a few release numbers before 1.0 ?
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:46 AM Jake Farrell <jf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> What does everyone think about cutting a 0.9.4 release candidate in the
>> next week or so?
>>
>> -Jake
>>
>

Re: Versions, patches and limited resources (was: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc)

[Yuxuan Wang <yu...@reddit.com.INVALID>]

+1 to what Allen said.

Regarding 1.0, the main problem is backward compatibility expectations from
semantic versions. With so many languages supported in thrift, basically if
we ever make any breaking change from any of the language libraries we need
to bump the major version to comply with semver, which can be problematic.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 6:41 PM Allen George <al...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jens -
>
> First off, thank you so much for your work on Thrift. You've been a
> consistent maintainer for as long as I've been a member of this community.
>
> I think it's less a question about versions, and more about expectations.
> Thrift has two major challenges: a wide language footprint (which means
> that maintainers have to understand N different
> languages/tools/build/publish systems) and a fairly thin maintainer base.
> Given that, I suggest that we support at most the last released version, as
> well as what's in the main/master. I understand that this may cause
> inconvenience to the user community, but I think that users can choose to
> fork the codebase and generate/use the artifacts they need for the older
> versions they're using.
>
> Best,
> Allen
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Randy Abernethy <ra...@rx-m.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If the community wants to move to 1.0 I would support that.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:11 AM Jens Geyer <je...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> > > > Java and the compiler (for C#)
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full
> > > 0.16.1 indeed.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Randy Abernethy
> > Managing Partner
> > RX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@rx-m.com
> > o 415-800-2922
> > c 415-624-6447
> >
>

Re: Versions, patches and limited resources (was: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc)

[Allen George <al...@gmail.com>]

Hi Jens -

First off, thank you so much for your work on Thrift. You've been a
consistent maintainer for as long as I've been a member of this community.

I think it's less a question about versions, and more about expectations.
Thrift has two major challenges: a wide language footprint (which means
that maintainers have to understand N different
languages/tools/build/publish systems) and a fairly thin maintainer base.
Given that, I suggest that we support at most the last released version, as
well as what's in the main/master. I understand that this may cause
inconvenience to the user community, but I think that users can choose to
fork the codebase and generate/use the artifacts they need for the older
versions they're using.

Best,
Allen

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Randy Abernethy <ra...@rx-m.com>
wrote:

> If the community wants to move to 1.0 I would support that.
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:11 AM Jens Geyer <je...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> > > Java and the compiler (for C#)
> >
> >
> > Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full
> > 0.16.1 indeed.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Randy Abernethy
> Managing Partner
> RX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@rx-m.com
> o 415-800-2922
> c 415-624-6447
>

Re: Versions, patches and limited resources (was: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc)

[Randy Abernethy <ra...@rx-m.com>]

If the community wants to move to 1.0 I would support that.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:11 AM Jens Geyer <je...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> > Java and the compiler (for C#)
>
>
> Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full
> 0.16.1 indeed.
>
>

-- 

Randy Abernethy
Managing Partner
RX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@rx-m.com
o 415-800-2922
c 415-624-6447

Re: Versions, patches and limited resources (was: Thoughts on a 0.9.4 rc)

[Jens Geyer <je...@apache.org>]

Am 05.03.2022 um 12:06 schrieb Jens Geyer:
> Java and the compiler (for C#)


Well, compiler code is a full package ... so that would then be a full 
0.16.1 indeed.