Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Angela Schreiber]

Hi Chetan

IMO it also makes sense to properly manage export versions for packages
shared between different internal oak modules as we discussed it during
the Oakathon yesterday.

Maybe Marcel could share the corresponding notes...

Kind regards
Angela

On 15/11/17 17:30, "Chetan Mehrotra"  wrote:

>> And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible
>changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are
>meant to be internal
>
>There are few packages which I think are exported mostly to allow
>other modules in Oak to work and as such are not like api to be used
>by end users (like spi.mount, spi.gc and spi.stats). Enforcing full
>backward compatibility for all spi package would hinder further
>evolution of design going forward.
>
>So would suggest to reconsider this and only version those which are
>meant to be used by users outside of Oak modules
>Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Angela Schreiber
> wrote:
>> Hi Chetan
>>
>> Well... I would have excepted that one goal of the m12n was to get a
>>clear
>> separation between public API and internals and everything that we
>>target
>> as API/SPI should be public IMO.
>>
>> And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible
>> changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are
>> meant to be internal...
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> On 14/11/17 18:10, "Chetan Mehrotra"  wrote:
>>
>>>Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi
>>>or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of
>>>Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in
>>>backward incompatible way easily
>>>Chetan Mehrotra
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber
>>> wrote:
 Hi Robert

 Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects.

 Kind regards
 Angela

 On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu"  wrote:

>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>> Any preference wrt the initial version number?
>
>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.
>
>Robert

>>

Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Chetan Mehrotra]

> And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible
changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are
meant to be internal

There are few packages which I think are exported mostly to allow
other modules in Oak to work and as such are not like api to be used
by end users (like spi.mount, spi.gc and spi.stats). Enforcing full
backward compatibility for all spi package would hinder further
evolution of design going forward.

So would suggest to reconsider this and only version those which are
meant to be used by users outside of Oak modules
Chetan Mehrotra


On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Angela Schreiber
 wrote:
> Hi Chetan
>
> Well... I would have excepted that one goal of the m12n was to get a clear
> separation between public API and internals and everything that we target
> as API/SPI should be public IMO.
>
> And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible
> changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are
> meant to be internal...
>
> Angela
>
> On 14/11/17 18:10, "Chetan Mehrotra"  wrote:
>
>>Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi
>>or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of
>>Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in
>>backward incompatible way easily
>>Chetan Mehrotra
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Robert
>>>
>>> Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Angela
>>>
>>> On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu"  wrote:
>>>
On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> Any preference wrt the initial version number?

The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.

Robert
>>>
>

Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Angela Schreiber]

Hi Chetan

Well... I would have excepted that one goal of the m12n was to get a clear
separation between public API and internals and everything that we target
as API/SPI should be public IMO.

And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible
changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are
meant to be internal...

Angela

On 14/11/17 18:10, "Chetan Mehrotra"  wrote:

>Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi
>or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of
>Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in
>backward incompatible way easily
>Chetan Mehrotra
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber
> wrote:
>> Hi Robert
>>
>> Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Angela
>>
>> On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu"  wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
 Any preference wrt the initial version number?
>>>
>>>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>

Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Chetan Mehrotra]

Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi
or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of
Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in
backward incompatible way easily
Chetan Mehrotra


On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber
 wrote:
> Hi Robert
>
> Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects.
>
> Kind regards
> Angela
>
> On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu"  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>>> Any preference wrt the initial version number?
>>
>>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.
>>
>>Robert
>

Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Angela Schreiber]

Hi Robert

Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects.

Kind regards
Angela

On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu"  wrote:

>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
>> Any preference wrt the initial version number?
>
>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.
>
>Robert

Re: [m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Robert Munteanu]

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +, Angela Schreiber wrote:
> Any preference wrt the initial version number?

The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO.

Robert

[m12n] Module oak-spi-core defines no export versions

[Angela Schreiber]

Hi Devs

Looking at OAK-3919  I
noticed that most packages in the new _core-spi_ module still don't have
export versions properly handled.

I guess this is an oversight that we missed during the modularisation.
Unless someone objects I would go ahead adding those (see also OAK-6942
 for the corresponding
JIRA ticket).

Any preference wrt the initial version number?

Kind regards
Angela