+1 SemVer. Getting used to it.
On 18.11.2014 03:08, Stephan Saalfeld wrote:
+1 SemVer
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 13:39 -0600, Curtis Rueden wrote:
Hi everyone,
This is a question for anyone consuming the pom-* parents of the
SciJava software stack.
We want to start versioning these POM parents according to consistent
rules. (Unfortunately, right now, the approach is vague and
potentially inconsistent [1].) We came up with the following two
possible schemes, and would like your feedback on which one you would
prefer.
== 1) SemVer ==
Every POM parent has three digits, X.Y.Z.
The X digit is "major" and when incremented indicates a breaking
change of some sort: either A) plugin config changes requiring
downstream changes, or more commonly B) major SemVer dependency
version bumps (e.g., managed scijava-common version updated from
2.35.0 to 3.0.0). This would exclude 0.x and beta components though
(so e.g. imglib2-realtransform could go from 2.0.0-beta-27 to
2.0.0-beta-28 without bumping pom-imglib2's X digit).
The Y digit is "minor" and incremented when dependency versions change
in a SemVer-compatible manner, or when plugin configuration is added
or improved.
For critical bug-fixes where a given POM parent is somehow compromised
or broken, the third digit Z can be bumped before going to the next Y.
(See e.g. the recent pom-fiji 5.0.Z series of releases.)
== 2) Bread crumb version trail ==
The pom-scijava parent would have a single version digit. The
pom-imagej (which is the next POM down) would have two: the first in
lockstep with its pom-scijava parent, and the second being its
dedicated version digit. POMs which extend pom-imagej (i.e.:
pom-scifio, pom-imglib2 and pom-fiji) would have three digits: the
first two in lockstep with pom-imagej and the third their own. And so
on down the line—e.g., pom-trakem2 would need four digits: the first
three matching the pom-fiji parent and the fourth its own.
== Pros and cons ==
Option 1:
[PRO] Semantic meaning. You can reason whether a given POM is somehow
"breaking".
[PRO] Succinctness. Every parent POM has at most three digits at any
one time.
[CON] Lack of provenance. Not obvious which parent POMs go together
without leaning on a tool.
Option 2:
[PRO] Clear provenance. You can trivially derive the chain of parent
POM versions.
[CON] Lack of semantics. Harder to tell which POM parent releases
might break backwards compatibility.
[CON] Aesthetics. More than 3 digits in a version string may not be
desirable.
Note that either way, we are in the process of creating a
scijava-maven-plugin goal to dump all the component version properties
associated with a given parent POM.
Since either scheme is consistent and useful, we want to institute
whichever scheme will annoy everyone less. ;-) So which do people like
better: SemVer or breadcrumbs?
Thanks,
Curtis
[1] The 5.x POM versioning approach was an attempt to achieve _both_
options above, but Mark & I realized today that the two goals are
rather mutually exclusive. That is, we cannot keep POM parent versions
fully in lockstep while also maintaining a SemVer versioning scheme.
--
--
Please avoid top-posting, and please make sure to reply-to-all!
Mailing list web interface: http://groups.google.com/group/fiji-devel
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Fiji-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to fiji-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
_______________________________________________
ImageJ-devel mailing list
ImageJ-devel@imagej.net
http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
_______________________________________________
ImageJ-devel mailing list
ImageJ-devel@imagej.net
http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
