let me wear the project manager hat for a moment.

Am 19.06.2018 um 10:59 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@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.

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

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.

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.

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 mean we come from an amateurish behaviour that we change released artefacts. That is not discussable just a no-go. 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.

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 have no use for an environment where people only care about coding new cool stuff. If it would be like this I would quit all my pharo businesses, move to mainstream and would use pharo only for hobbyist projects because that would be the level that can be met.

Norbert

In any case, I think it is more important to discuss about the numbering as soon as we have a clear documentation on Iceberg's API...

Regarding the bad links, I copy-pasted the text from the PR instead from the release page in Iceberg, which messes up links.

Patch version containing the following cleanups and enhancements
#864 Repairing Missing repositories lead to wrong source directory
#861 update tonel to v1.0.9
#836 DefaultBackendType class variable is unused
#862 Iceberg tests are not running in Pharo 7
#852 Make error dialogs copy-pastable
#858 IceTipReadOnlyTextMorph does not allow select and copy anymore
#850 Change Detached head status from error to warning if we are on a tag
#853 Clone dialog "username" is confusing
#860 CredentialStore API
#854 Error in History window

Guille

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:12 PM Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Great - thank you! Might be a small patch release - but nonetheless important.

BTW: the links in your mail are pointing to PR's of Pharo and not Iceberg. If you used
a template you might want to consider changing it.

Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2018 um 17:47 Uhr
Von: "Guillermo Polito" <guillermopolito@gmail.com>
An: "Any question about pharo is welcome" <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org>, "Discusses Development of Pharo" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
Betreff: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Iceberg v1.1.1

Hi everybody,

This week we have a small patch release of Iceberg, version v1.1.1.

This version will be available in the next Pharo build.

In summary, this release fixes two issues with the new credentials manager, and introduces a couple of other enhancements/bugfixes.

Below you will find the detailed changes log.

Enjoy,

Guille

Integrate Iceberg 1.1.1
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22168/Integrate-Iceberg-1-1-1
https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.1.1
#864 Repairing Missing repositories lead to wrong source directory
#861 update tonel to v1.0.9
#836 DefaultBackendType class variable is unused
#862 Iceberg tests are not running in Pharo 7
#852 Make error dialogs copy-pastable
#858 IceTipReadOnlyTextMorph does not allow select and copy anymore
#850 Change Detached head status from error to warning if we are on a tag
#853 Clone dialog "username" is confusing
#860 CredentialStore API
#854 Error in History window

--

Guille Polito
Research Engineer

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
CRIStAL - UMR 9189
French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr

Web: http://guillep.github.io
Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13

--

Guille Polito
Research Engineer

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
CRIStAL - UMR 9189
French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr

Web: http://guillep.github.io
Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13