[Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Iceberg v1.1.1

Guillermo Polito guillermopolito at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 09:22:10 EDT 2018

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:07 PM Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name> wrote:

> Hi,
> let me wear the project manager hat for a moment.

let me too, because the fact that I'm younger does not mean I don't know,
right? :)

> Am 19.06.2018 um 10:59 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com
> >:
> Hi,
> About why 1.1.1 and not 1.2.0. It’s not about cheap or not, but about
> semantics :)
> for me „caring about semantics“ is just one of the top ten justifications
> developers use for the changes they did.

Maybe, and putting the hat of project manager is usually a justification
for somebody that is not good at technical stuff.
But I know that's not like it, so please let's not enter into this, I've
felt a little insulted by this comment...

> We can agree that there is no hard rule on versionning, do we? But I try
> to follow the following guidelines (delta my own interpretation that adds
> some subjectivity :P)
> - Major Version will change when we break backwards compatibility
> - Minor Version will change when new features are added
> - Otherwise, patch version will change.
> There is only one hard rule for me and that is knowing about the risk to
> take.

That's a matter of conventions. We agree that version 1.1.x is compatible
with 1.1.y.

> So if we take the patch version it should only include important bug fixes
> and nothing else. I would argue that only #864, #862, #858 and #854 qualify
> for such a patch if at all.

So they are to my view. They should not introduce any compatibility issue.
And if they do, that's an error, but we are too few helping here, doing our

> Not sure about #860 because the title is not specific enough.

Please, I'll let you judge it for yourself


But to me that change applies to patch. It actually fixes a compatibility
issue that was introduced in 1.1.0.

> The point for me is that I want my project to rely on something like 1.1.x
> because I don’t want anything to change that breaks my software. And I can
> tell you that most developers underestimate the side-effects of changes.

I'm well aware of this. But do you have a concrete issue?

> So I don’t assign a new version number regarding the number of changes but
> about what they mean...
> To mean they mean it is a risk to use that version and you define how big
> that is.

We are trying to do weekly releases, we could do better but again. I can
count with my hand fingers people contributing with actual commits and
issues in the issue tracker.

> Now, I considered myself this release as a patch because mostly little
> bugs here and there were fixed.
> Moreover, one of the changes done in the credentials manager was to
> *recover* some backwards compatibility for people setting up credentials in
> settings files.
> Of course, to this we add to this that my own interpretation saying that
> the changes do not break compatibility nor add features :)
> You see you said „mostly bugs“ and that is the error already.

I'm sorry for not being perfect...

> I mean we come from an amateurish behaviour that we change released
> artefacts.

I assure you I do my best on it, and I'm one of the first that cries aloud
when there are versionning and dependencies problems.
What I do not understand if this mail was meant as a lesson for the
community or should I take it personally...

> That is not discussable just a no-go.

I know and I'm against it. So we agree, right?

> The reason was it would have wasted a huge amount of time to do a new
> version. So ok it was a loose-loose situation. Now we can do it better and
> I want something far less amateurish. So you can discuss your semantics
> about what major and minor versions in pharo mean but patch needs to be the
> definition of the combination: least risk - highest value.

Would you help us measuring the risk?

> Now, this is the kind of subjective topic that starts a flamewar, but I’d
> prefer to use my time on somewhat else ^^.
> You may not like to talk about these things but I do. And you should
> listen.

I mostly do [enjoy such discussions] but what I learn from this discussion
 - you think I'm stupid, or young, or both, so I don't know
 - we are all amateurs

> I have no use for an environment where people only care about coding new
> cool stuff.

I'm fu*** trying to make Iceberg as stable as possible, If I was just
wanting to do new cool stuff I would not be doing this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20180619/65900cd0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Pharo-users mailing list