Jean-Baptiste, could you grant tinkerpop:developers team access to the
gremlin package?

Once we all have access, it would be nice to have a beta release of
3.2.8/3.3.2 as soon as possible, to allow users to start giving it a try.

There aren't any others tickets in JIRA affecting the javascript GLV that I
could find. It has been a long road for the GLV but being an scripting
language, I expect it to be easier to maintain than the C# GLV :)

If there aren't any blockers, it would be nice to start discussing a
timeline for 3.2.8/3.3.2.

Cheers,
Jorge


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've added The Baptist to the the org in npm - all done
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have no objections to using "gremlin" since it sounds like we have ways
> > to make sure users don't break in unclear ways. I'll give others a chance
> > to respond and barring no additional discussion will get The Baptist
> added
> > to the org in npm. i guess we can proceed to the next step from there.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> jorgebaygon...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Reusing the existing package name while adding a deprecation message,
> >> sounds good to me then.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind we will be releasing both for 3.2.x and 3.3.x branches, so
> >> any
> >> deprecation message should be for versions lower than 3.2.
> >>
> >> If all agree, the next step will be to add jbmusso to tinkerpop org on
> npm
> >> and add him to the "developers" team. I can't do it, as I'm not an
> "owner"
> >> of the organization.
> >> Once you have the proper access rights, you should grant write access to
> >> package "tinkerpop:developers".
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Musso <jbmu...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > npm (and yarn) now freeze versions aggressively in package.json and
> >> > package-lock.json or yarn.lock, respectively. Publishing a new version
> >> on
> >> > the v3.y.z (v.3.3.2) shouldn't be a concern for most users since,
> >> luckily,
> >> > I never published past the 2.y.z major version on npm.
> >> >
> >> > What I'm thinking is that we could add a deprecation message that
> users
> >> > will see when installing all releases prior to using v3.3.2 when it's
> >> > published. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/deprecate should be helpful.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think that will break anything unless people added "gremlin":
> >> "*"
> >> > in their package.json, but I guess very few people did that. What will
> >> > break is example in live docs, such as Microsoft Azure CosmosDB, where
> >> > installation requirements are "npm install gremlin": this will install
> >> > v3.3.2, and break things. The quick fix for them is to update their
> doc
> >> to
> >> > "npm install gremlin@v2" - that should work.
> >> >
> >> > I also need to deprecate "gremlin-javascript" on npm (that lib still
> >> gets
> >> > downloaded!), since I was pushing using this name before I was donated
> >> the
> >> > "gremlin" package name (I think 2-3 years ago). That'll be the second
> >> time
> >> > this package name is transferred, actually - back in the days, it was
> a
> >> > Node.js/JVM bridge using node-java.
> >> >
> >> > Another option is to publish under "@tinkerpop/gremlin", but I think
> >> it's
> >> > best if we can force people to no longer use the current "gremlin"
> >> package,
> >> > and use the official GLV, also under that same name. Having many
> package
> >> > names will add a lot of confusion in the next month/years, and I think
> >> it's
> >> > best to risk breaking few things in the short term rather than adding
> *a
> >> > lot* of confusion on the long term.
> >> >
> >> > Jean-Baptiste
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > It stinks that we would break 3K+ downloads. I don't know the npm
> >> > > environment too well. Can a break be expected for people? The
> current
> >> > > version of https://www.npmjs.com/package/gremlin is at 2.6.0 and we
> >> > would
> >> > > publish at 3.x which people could expect as a breaking change, no?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> >> > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > > Now that the JavaScript GLV has been merged, it will be nice to
> >> have an
> >> > > > official pre-release (RC / beta) on the npm package manager as
> soon
> >> as
> >> > > > possible to allow users to start giving it a try.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The package name identifier in the package.json is currently
> >> > > > gremlin-javascript <https://www.npmjs.com/package
> >> /gremlin-javascript>,
> >> > > > which is under the tinkerpop organization created by Stephen:
> >> > > > https://www.npmjs.com/org/tinkerpop
> >> > > > npm orgs are a nice feature as it let's you handle the team
> members
> >> > that
> >> > > > can be collaborators (publish versions).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Jean-Baptiste offered
> >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/695#issuecomment-
> >> 358482362>
> >> > to
> >> > > > transfer ownership of gremlin <https://www.npmjs.com/package
> >> /gremlin>
> >> > > > package to TinkerPop, so we can publish the GLV under that package
> >> > name.
> >> > > My
> >> > > > only concern would be to break the functionality for current
> users,
> >> as
> >> > > the
> >> > > > existent package has 3K downloads per month. I would prefer to
> >> include
> >> > a
> >> > > > message on the gremlin package explaining the difference with
> >> > > > gremlin-javascript (or recommending the GLV for future
> development),
> >> > but
> >> > > I
> >> > > > don't feel strongly either way.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > Jorge
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to