Steve, 2.0.4-alpha is released. --Konst
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Steve Loughran <[email protected]>wrote: > On 14 May 2013 11:52, Konstantin Shvachko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sounds like you are having fun, Arun. > > 2.0.5 is explicitly in the subject line for this vote. > > No worries I'll fix that. > > > > You should stop assuming - it's in nobody interests - and start reading. > > --Konst > > > > OK, I've been reading and have to say I'm confused. > > "If the next release has to be 2.0.5 I would like to make an alternative > proposal, which would include > - stabilization of current 2.0.4 > - making all API changes to allow freezing them post 2.0.5 > And nothing else. > " > > This means, if my interpretation is correct, that > > 1. there is a new fork off 2.0.4-alpha which has a name like 2.0.4-alpha-1 > (as requested in JIRA), which will iterated until something ships, name > potentially 2.0.5 > > 2. All "features" since 2.0.4-alpha are out, but API stabilisation is in. > > 3. There is some agreed on definition of API which may include -but is not > restricted to-: class signature, wire format, persistent data structures, > semantics as defined by tests cases, semantics as defined by some > formal/semi-formal specification, and the n-dimensional configuration > manifold defined by the set of parameters read from -config.xml. > > Implications > > #1: there is/will-soon-be a fork in SVN of 2.0.4-alpha which is going to be > released. > > #2: the RM and/or others have volunteered to pull in all the changes needed > to say "this is frozen and stable" and if you code against it then its > going to work for the duration of the 2.x line. > > #3: but not changes considered "features". > > Now: > > 1. What if there is a feature that is also an API change? How is the > definition of feature vs non-feature going to be taken up? > > 2. If there is already a change between 2.0.4-alpha and the forthcoming > 2.0.5-beta which is visible at the API level then these will have to be > backport that so that its behaviour remains consistent over time. > > 3 If those changes in (2) are part of a feature by (1), then is someone > going to have to tease out the bits that will be declared "stable, API" and > not "feature, unstable" > > Help me understand, > > -Steve >
