You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@climate.apache.org by "Kim, Jinwon" <jk...@atmos.ucla.edu> on 2014/08/28 23:57:23 UTC
OCW1.0
Hi Mike,
Looks like you've made good progress in OCW 0.4. Is this a good time to think about releasing OCW version 1.0 to users and developers? This will also allow us to replace old RCMES versions that have been used by earlier users but are not supported anymore.
Cheers,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jinwon Kim
Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and Dept. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
University of California, Los Angeles
607 Charles E Young Drive East, Young Hall, Room 4242, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7228, USA
jkim@atmos.ucla.edu; 310-206-2828
Re: OCW1.0
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Great..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>
Reply-To: "dev@climate.apache.org" <de...@climate.apache.org>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:45 PM
To: "dev@climate.apache.org" <de...@climate.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OCW1.0
>Hi Jinwon,
>
>Thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to send an email to the
>list
>for some while now regarding a change to our versioning scheme and to
>start
>a discussion about a release roadmap.
>
>I would like to see the project switch over to a more useful versioning
>scheme such as [1]. I think we've reached a point in the project where we
>can jump to a major version # increment without worrying about very
>frequent API breaking changes. I would like to see 0.5 become 1.0.0 and
>then move on from there. This would also let us make small
>changes/releases
>without necessarily confusing everyone on the compatibility of the
>releases.
>
>Thoughts on this everyone?
>
>[1] http://semver.org/
>
>
>-- Joyce
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Kim, Jinwon <jk...@atmos.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Looks like you've made good progress in OCW 0.4. Is this a good time to
>> think about releasing OCW version 1.0 to users and developers? This will
>> also allow us to replace old RCMES versions that have been used by
>>earlier
>> users but are not supported anymore.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jinwon Kim
>> Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and
>> Dept. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
>> University of California, Los Angeles
>> 607 Charles E Young Drive East, Young Hall, Room 4242, Los Angeles, CA
>> 90095-7228, USA
>> jkim@atmos.ucla.edu; 310-206-2828
RE: OCW1.0
Posted by "Kim, Jinwon" <jk...@atmos.ucla.edu>.
Looks like a plan. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jinwon Kim
Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and Dept. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
University of California, Los Angeles
607 Charles E Young Drive East, Young Hall, Room 4242, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7228, USA
jkim@atmos.ucla.edu; 310-206-2828
________________________________________
From: mltjoyce@gmail.com [mltjoyce@gmail.com] on behalf of Michael Joyce [joyce@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:45 PM
To: dev@climate.apache.org
Subject: Re: OCW1.0
Hi Jinwon,
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to send an email to the list
for some while now regarding a change to our versioning scheme and to start
a discussion about a release roadmap.
I would like to see the project switch over to a more useful versioning
scheme such as [1]. I think we've reached a point in the project where we
can jump to a major version # increment without worrying about very
frequent API breaking changes. I would like to see 0.5 become 1.0.0 and
then move on from there. This would also let us make small changes/releases
without necessarily confusing everyone on the compatibility of the releases.
Thoughts on this everyone?
[1] http://semver.org/
-- Joyce
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Kim, Jinwon <jk...@atmos.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Looks like you've made good progress in OCW 0.4. Is this a good time to
> think about releasing OCW version 1.0 to users and developers? This will
> also allow us to replace old RCMES versions that have been used by earlier
> users but are not supported anymore.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Jinwon Kim
> Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and
> Dept. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
> University of California, Los Angeles
> 607 Charles E Young Drive East, Young Hall, Room 4242, Los Angeles, CA
> 90095-7228, USA
> jkim@atmos.ucla.edu; 310-206-2828
Re: OCW1.0
Posted by Michael Joyce <jo...@apache.org>.
Hi Jinwon,
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to send an email to the list
for some while now regarding a change to our versioning scheme and to start
a discussion about a release roadmap.
I would like to see the project switch over to a more useful versioning
scheme such as [1]. I think we've reached a point in the project where we
can jump to a major version # increment without worrying about very
frequent API breaking changes. I would like to see 0.5 become 1.0.0 and
then move on from there. This would also let us make small changes/releases
without necessarily confusing everyone on the compatibility of the releases.
Thoughts on this everyone?
[1] http://semver.org/
-- Joyce
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Kim, Jinwon <jk...@atmos.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Looks like you've made good progress in OCW 0.4. Is this a good time to
> think about releasing OCW version 1.0 to users and developers? This will
> also allow us to replace old RCMES versions that have been used by earlier
> users but are not supported anymore.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Jinwon Kim
> Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and
> Dept. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
> University of California, Los Angeles
> 607 Charles E Young Drive East, Young Hall, Room 4242, Los Angeles, CA
> 90095-7228, USA
> jkim@atmos.ucla.edu; 310-206-2828