If you folks are planning any breaking changes to the API, I would suggest to do that before the 1.0 … but if the system is API-wise mature, go for it ;-)
In PLC4X I’m trying to shape the API in this and the next release into a form we’ll be able to not have to do major releases too often. Users tend to be a bit more angry when having to adjust from 1.0.0 to 2.0.0 than from 0.10.0 to 0.11.0 (Even if it’s the same pain) Chris From: Philipp Zehnder <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 25. November 2022 at 10:28 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: AW: [DISCUSS] Plan to release StreamPipes 1.0 Hi, I am also in favor of releasing a 1.0 version soon after the 0.90.0 version. I think we do not need any new features for the 1.0 release. My suggestion would be to focus on usability improvements and bug fixes for the 1.0 release. Especially that we have a backward compatible system and users can easily update to newer versions. Do you have any ideas how we can ensure this? We need a way to test that updates work as expected and do not break anything. It would be cool to have an automated approach to validate this for each release. Cheers, Philipp Von: Dominik Riemer <[email protected]> Datum: Freitag, 25. November 2022 um 07:08 An: [email protected] <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Plan to release StreamPipes 1.0 Hi Xin, thanks for bringing up this important question! The current plan is to release a new version soon together with the TLP announcement, which is currently named "0.90.0". I totally agree that a 1.0 version gives more trust to users. So let's say we would go for a 1.0 release after 0.90.0, what do you all think should be part of this release and what improvements should be done? Are any mission-critical features missing? E.g., an important item on my list for the 1.0 release is increased test coverage. Cheers Dominik On 2022/11/25 05:07:54 Xin Wang wrote: > The current StreamPipes version is 0.70. Do we have a plan to release 1.0? > Because 1.x version may make users feel more mature and stable, what do you > think? > > > -- > Thanks, > Xin >
