On Oct 6, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 6, 2007, at 5:24 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
What I really don't like about this proposal is that it talks
about updating index pages. If I understand this right, an
updated index page will force everybody that uses this index page
into an update.
Only people who ask for updates.
Yes, but it's important in releases. If I release my application to
someone else, they will be asking for an update while I might never
had. I cannot test this as the updated versions might've been
released *after* I make my application release.
Of course, each update to an index is, in essense a new release of
the index.
...
I don't think this is acceptable.
I think this depends on the use cases. I think most people would
like to get bug fixes. The intent of such a 3.4 index would be to
give people the latest 3.4 updates which should give no new
features. This is intended to mimick what happens with linux
package respositories.
Yes, bugfixes is less of a problem than feature releases, if this
is well managed. Since packages evolve at different rates, what is
done for feature releases of packages? Do they end up in the same
index or separate indexes? How to determine when to make a new index?
Those are all good questions that need to be answered. Of the top of
my head, :)
- I imagine there would be an index for each feature release that
gets bug -fix updates.
- There would be an index for the next feature release that includes
stable packages with new features. There would be some requirements
for packages to be deamed ready for the next release.
Let me make the case for bug-for-bug compatibility:
I assume by this you mean setting fixed versions.
The problems during release as I sketched out above still exist.
Granted for bugfix releases the chances are lower that something
breaks than it is now, but we all know people sometimes disagree
about what actually constitutes a bugfix (or larger change), and
people also sometimes have workarounds or code assumptions that
depend on bugs. Bugfixes can break working code.
I'm not suggesting that setting fixed versions is a bad idea. I
think some projects may choose to go this way. This is a valid
policy decision. Other developers would, IMO, benefit from having a
relatively stable index as a source of new packages. I don't think
this is an either-or decision.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
