People (and not just book authors :) often ask - whither 1.0? [Ok, maybe they don't use 'whither']. The fact remains, some people want a 1.0 designation, and I'm not unwilling, providing we as a community can come to an understanding as to what that means, the process it implies, and the work it will require (and who will do it). Here are some of the relevant issues, IMO:
- Stability/completeness/robustness This is mostly about - does it work? Is it relatively free of bugs? Is it free of gaping holes in core functionality? I think Clojure is in a pretty good place right now, but am obviously biased. This in no way implies there isn't room for improvement. - API stability With the semantic changes of fully lazy sequences behind us, I think the syntax and semantics of existing functions is largely stable. - Development process stability Currently all new work (fixes and enhancements) occurs in trunk. There's no way to get fixes without also getting enhancements. I think this is the major missing piece in offering stable numbered releases. While I've cut a branch for each of the prior two releases, no one has ever submitted a bugfix patch for either. If people are going to want to work with a particular release version for an extended period of time, someone (other than me) will have to produce patches of (only!) fixes from the trunk for the release branch, and occasionally produce point releases (1.0.x) from that branch. I'd like to continue to do the bulk of my work in trunk, without messing anyone up or forcing everyone to follow along. - Freedom from change Numbered releases are most definitely not about absence of change in general. There are more things I want to add and change, and there will be for some time. That will keep Clojure a living language. 1.0 or any numbered release can't and won't constitute a promise of no further change. But there are different kinds of change, changes that fix bugs and changes that add new capabilities or break existing code. People need to be able to choose the type of change they can tolerate, and when to incur it. - Perception Obviously, a 1.0 designation impacts perception. I am not interested in pursuing it just to influence perception, but rather to (collectively) acknowledge a milestone in usability and stability. However there may be other perceptions, good/bad or simply wrong (e.g. that Clojure is "finished"). Will the general perception engendered by 1.0 be met in the large, or a mismatch? What does 1.0 mean to you? Are we there yet? Any recommendations for the organization of the release branches, patch policy etc? Feedback welcome, Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
