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:
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 Fulton
Zope Corporation

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to