[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
best...


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

Please, I'll let you judge it for yourself

https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/pull/860/files

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
is:
 - 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