> Am 19.06.2018 um 15:22 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com>: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:07 PM Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name > <mailto:norb...@hartl.name>> wrote: > Hi, > > let me wear the project manager hat for a moment. > > let me too, because the fact that I'm younger does not mean I don't know, > right? :) > It has more to do with experience then with age. Well, the one thing enables sometimes the other but there is no strict causality, right.
> >> Am 19.06.2018 um 10:59 schrieb Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com >> <mailto:guillermopol...@gmail.com>>: >> >> Hi, >> >> About why 1.1.1 and not 1.2.0. It’s not about cheap or not, but about >> semantics :) > > for me „caring about semantics“ is just one of the top ten justifications > developers use for the changes they did. > > Maybe, and putting the hat of project manager is usually a justification for > somebody that is not good at technical stuff. > But I know that's not like it, so please let's not enter into this, I've felt > a little insulted by this comment... > That is pretty clear by what you wrote. It wasn’t meant to be personal so please don’t take it like that. So do I. > >> We can agree that there is no hard rule on versionning, do we? But I try to >> follow the following guidelines (delta my own interpretation that adds some >> subjectivity :P) >> - Major Version will change when we break backwards compatibility >> - Minor Version will change when new features are added >> - Otherwise, patch version will change. >> > There is only one hard rule for me and that is knowing about the risk to take. > > That's a matter of conventions. We agree that version 1.1.x is compatible > with 1.1.y. > > So if we take the patch version it should only include important bug fixes > and nothing else. I would argue that only #864, #862, #858 and #854 qualify > for such a patch if at all. > > So they are to my view. They should not introduce any compatibility issue. > And if they do, that's an error, but we are too few helping here, doing our > best... > My mail was meant to be a plea for exactly this. If you don’t think the hot-fix (I like that much more than patch) solves a show stopper for a lot of users of this version you don’t put it in a patch version. If it is in the slightest sense an improvement don’t put into a patch version but a minor on. Because I don’t want to have my stuff broken but I choose to update in order to get the improvement hence a deliberate action. If all of these commits are hot-fixes then take my big excuse for bringing this up. > Not sure about #860 because the title is not specific enough. > > Please, I'll let you judge it for yourself > > https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/pull/860/files > <https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/pull/860/files> > > But to me that change applies to patch. It actually fixes a compatibility > issue that was introduced in 1.1.0. > > The point for me is that I want my project to rely on something like 1.1.x > because I don’t want anything to change that breaks my software. And I can > tell you that most developers underestimate the side-effects of changes. > > I'm well aware of this. But do you have a concrete issue? > For what? > >> So I don’t assign a new version number regarding the number of changes but >> about what they mean... > > To mean they mean it is a risk to use that version and you define how big > that is. > > We are trying to do weekly releases, we could do better but again. I can > count with my hand fingers people contributing with actual commits and issues > in the issue tracker. > This time it is not about having more but less in a version. > >> Now, I considered myself this release as a patch because mostly little bugs >> here and there were fixed. >> Moreover, one of the changes done in the credentials manager was to >> *recover* some backwards compatibility for people setting up credentials in >> settings files. >> Of course, to this we add to this that my own interpretation saying that the >> changes do not break compatibility nor add features :) >> > You see you said „mostly bugs“ and that is the error already. > > I'm sorry for not being perfect... > > I mean we come from an amateurish behaviour that we change released artefacts. > > I assure you I do my best on it, and I'm one of the first that cries aloud > when there are versionning and dependencies problems. > What I do not understand if this mail was meant as a lesson for the community > or should I take it personally... > I know you do your best. And I know that you are a really good developer that does great stuff all the time. It is neither meant as a lesson nor something you should take personally. I do not often raise my wishes because I always need to assurance it is something really important and not something I want out of my current mood. But this is something I have no doubt about so I bring it up. And I do all of this for quite some time and that does count, too. > That is not discussable just a no-go. > > I know and I'm against it. So we agree, right? > Yes. > The reason was it would have wasted a huge amount of time to do a new > version. So ok it was a loose-loose situation. Now we can do it better and I > want something far less amateurish. So you can discuss your semantics about > what major and minor versions in pharo mean but patch needs to be the > definition of the combination: least risk - highest value. > > Would you help us measuring the risk? > Sure. > >> Now, this is the kind of subjective topic that starts a flamewar, but I’d >> prefer to use my time on somewhat else ^^. > > You may not like to talk about these things but I do. And you should listen. > > I mostly do [enjoy such discussions] but what I learn from this discussion is: > - you think I'm stupid, or young, or both, so I don't know > - we are all amateurs > No, it is more like - you took it as a personal insult. That was not my intention and I apologize - well, we includes me. There are things that I have a pretty solid opinion about and that is what I want to raise. And I want to bring that into the community. It is also important work > I have no use for an environment where people only care about coding new cool > stuff. > > I'm fu*** trying to make Iceberg as stable as possible, If I was just wanting > to do new cool stuff I would not be doing this. > I know. Norbert
