I know it's a bit late to the party, but i think it is weird to have pulpcore "stable" (whatever that means) and the reference implementation of a plugin (which is pulp_file) held back. Especially so as pulpcore without any plugin is rather useless. You could use it as a dumb blob storage if you never called orphan_cleanup, but that is not what we want it to be recognised stable for.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > Sounds good, thank you for the feedback. > > If anyone has feedback, the deadline is April 27, 2020. > > David > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:01 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> tl;dr we follow semver.org and I agree with your reasoning, so I'm >> convinced 1.0 would be fine. While I'm not in favor of the change, I'm >> ready to disagree and commit. >> >> In the interests of sharing perspectives, here's mine. The issue with >> semver.org is that it's exclusively focused on change management, and it >> ignores what I perceive as a cultural association with > 1.0 software to >> mean "broadly tested and low risk". Is pulp_file at a point where backwards >> compatibility is a primary concern and prohibited yes. Do the developers of >> pulp_file recommend it to be run in production, yes. As a user, is it a low >> risk software due to many folks having already deployed it in production, >> no. In fact pulp_file is maybe in the high to medium risk category based on >> the number of folks who are actually running it in production. >> >> Having said all that, I'm ready to support your proposal on the semver >> basis. Your reasoning is sound. Thank you for writing your thoughts here >> and your effort to make it great. >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I want to expound on my own reasoning behind why pulp_file should be >>> bumped to 1.0 because I realize my original email was probably too brief >>> and I apologize for that. >>> >>> The thing that I would refer to is semver.org which we've used as a >>> guide for versioning. semver.org defines a 0.Y release as: >>> >>> Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY >>> change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable. >>> >>> Moreover, semver.org has this question/answer: >>> >>> How do I know when to release 1.0.0? >>> >>> If your software is being used in production, it should probably >>> already be 1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to >>> depend, you should be 1.0.0. If you’re worrying a lot about backwards >>> compatibility, you should probably already be 1.0.0. >>> >>> I think we meet both of these criteria. I expect that Pulp users are >>> probably using pulp_file in production already. In terms of its API, we've >>> had only two small features in the last couple releases of pulp_file since >>> 0.1.0[0] and no major changes to the public API (there was the rename of >>> one field). I don't foresee any major changes to the public api anytime >>> soon. There's not a roadmap for new features either and certainly nothing I >>> see that could cause major changes to pulp_file's API. >>> >>> I think that in this context it makes sense to bump it to 1.0 to >>> communicate to our users that the pulp_file API is stable enough to use in >>> production. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/CHANGES.rst >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:59 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I feel differently especially when considering that most other Pulp >>>> plugins are at > 1.0. Can you explain why you think pulp_file shouldn't be >>>> at 1.0? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:57 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've seen software live in the < 1.0 area for a long time and graduate >>>>> when it's in broad, production use. That's a difficult thing to assess >>>>> accurately, but to me, pulp_file hasn't reached that point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> With the next release of pulp_file, I'd propose we bump the version >>>>>> to 1.0. The pulp_file plugin has reached a level of maturity and >>>>>> stability >>>>>> that I think it could be considered production-ready. I've opened a PR to >>>>>> bump the version to 1.0.0: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/380 >>>>>> >>>>>> Feedback welcome. I'll set a deadline of April 27, 2020. >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
