Shortly a large pull request will be merged to Infusion trunk which clears out a large number of obsolete framework features. This marks a "point of no return" with respect to maintaining compatibility with code written against the Infusion 1.x framework - although our components written against the new framework will maintain their API contracts unchanged.

The pull request is at https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/pull/591 and a list of the framework changes is basically equivalent to the one at http://docs.fluidproject.org/infusion/development/DeprecationsIn1_5.html . After this merge, the framework's API will be very much closer to the one we will deliver for the Infusion 2.0 release than the still basically 1.x-compatible version currently in trunk.

In fluid-work yesterday we were having a conversation about what we should name the tag we make to represent the current state of trunk.

https://botbot.me/freenode/fluid-work/2015-06-16/?msg=41990122&page=1

We talked over various possibilities involving 1.6 or 1.9 version numbers, but we considered that given we had not done any of the testing required for a full release and would probably never produce a full release based on this revision, that the use of such a specific version number would be misleading.

The current proposal is to tag current trunk with a meaningful string that clearly doesn't correspond to a release number, for example, "1.x-last" and then after the merge to move trunk to a semver-compatible release number of "2.0.0-alpha.1". This would become the real release number of the first release we made from trunk subsequently, which would then be bumped up to "2.0.0-alpha.2" etc.

If anyone would like to make a further proposal, please could you read up in the IRC transcript above and then followup to this thread - cheers

Antranig
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work@lists.idrc.ocadu.ca
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

Reply via email to