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

Norbert Hartl norbert at hartl.name
Tue Jun 19 10:20:11 EDT 2018



> Am 19.06.2018 um 15:22 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com>:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:07 PM Norbert Hartl <norbert at hartl.name <mailto: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? :)
>  
It has more to do with experience then with age. Well, the one thing enables sometimes the other but there is no strict causality, right.

> 
>> Am 19.06.2018 um 10:59 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com <mailto: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...
>  
That is pretty clear by what you wrote. It wasn’t meant to be personal so please don’t take it like that. So do I. 
> 
>> 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...
>  
My mail was meant to be a plea for exactly this. If you don’t think the hot-fix (I like that much more than patch) solves a show stopper for a lot of users of this version you don’t put it in a patch version. If it is in the slightest sense an improvement don’t put into a patch version but a minor on. Because I don’t want to have my stuff broken but I choose to update in order to get the improvement hence a deliberate action. If all of these commits are hot-fixes then take my big excuse for bringing this up.

> 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 <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?
>  
For what?

> 
>> 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.
>  
This time it is not about having more but less in a version.
> 
>> 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...
>  
I know you do your best. And I know that you are a really good developer that does great stuff all the time. It is neither meant as a lesson nor something you should take personally. I do not often raise my wishes because I always need to assurance it is something really important and not something I want out of my current mood. But this is something I have no doubt about so I bring it up. And I do all of this for quite some time and that does count, too. 

> That is not discussable just a no-go.
> 
> I know and I'm against it. So we agree, right?
>  
Yes.

> 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?
>  
Sure. 
> 
>> 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
>  
No, it is more like
- you took it as a personal insult. That was not my intention and I apologize
- well, we includes me. There are things that I have a pretty solid opinion about and that is what I want to raise. And I want to bring that into the community. It is also important work

> 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.
> 
I know.

Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20180619/58dde628/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list