Proposal on the platform API policy question
All, Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following: * Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could people indicate if they think they can support this. Note that there are plenty of other issues that we have yet to address, so don't worry that we're not talking about those yet. We raised this issue first because we need a decision. Details: * "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1. * Having the platform following the PVP means the next minor release will be 2009.2.0.1 (rather than 2009.2.1) to indicate that it has (or more accurately it's constituents have) the exact same API as the previous major release. In general the version will be of the form "X.Y.0.Z" with "X.Y" being the major version and Z the minor. * Initially using a 4 month major release cycle means we'll get one release before ghc 6.12 and another after (assuming 6.12 is released in November again). * After 12 months we'll review (via this mailing list) the release cycle frequency based on the experience of 4 month release cycles and with input from HP users, HP package maintainers and HP release wranglers. Duncan
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote: All, Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
raised, Don and I would like to propose the following: * Bug fix only in minor releases
* Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
* 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
* Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
people indicate if they think they can support this. I support this proposal.
Cheers,
Johan
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:54:13PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
* Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
Sounds good. Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP terminology for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases and call them patchlevel releases. (In those terms, HP will not have minor releases.)
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 00:45 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:54:13PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
* Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
Sounds good. Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP terminology for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases and call them patchlevel releases. (In those terms, HP will not have minor releases.)
Good idea. Duncan
Ross Paterson wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
* Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
Sounds like a good plan.
Sounds good. Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP terminology for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases and call them patchlevel releases. (In those terms, HP will not have minor releases.)
+1. Duncan Coutts wrote:
Details:
* "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1.
The one thing I'd like to highlight again is the issue of "strictness bugfixes". This is more of a PVP definition issue than a HP release issue, but it is one that should be resolved so the HP doesn't incur surprises. -- Live well, ~wren
Duncan Coutts wrote:
All,
Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
* Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could people indicate if they think they can support this.
Sounds like a good compromise based on the discussion. As a user of HP I'd be happy with that :-) I'd also be comfortable with you and Don having the final word on decisions like this. That is, I'd be all right with rough consensus on matters relating to HP :-) /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Duncan Coutts wrote:
We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could people indicate if they think they can support this.
Sounds good to me. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================
Sounds good. --Ben On 20 May 2009, at 23:54, Duncan Coutts wrote:
All,
Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
* Bug fix only in minor releases * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could people indicate if they think they can support this.
Note that there are plenty of other issues that we have yet to address, so don't worry that we're not talking about those yet. We raised this issue first because we need a decision.
Details:
* "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1. * Having the platform following the PVP means the next minor release will be 2009.2.0.1 (rather than 2009.2.1) to indicate that it has (or more accurately it's constituents have) the exact same API as the previous major release. In general the version will be of the form "X.Y.0.Z" with "X.Y" being the major version and Z the minor. * Initially using a 4 month major release cycle means we'll get one release before ghc 6.12 and another after (assuming 6.12 is released in November again). * After 12 months we'll review (via this mailing list) the release cycle frequency based on the experience of 4 month release cycles and with input from HP users, HP package maintainers and HP release wranglers.
Duncan
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
participants (7)
-
Ben Moseley -
Duncan Coutts -
Johan Tibell -
Magnus Therning -
Ross Paterson -
Sittampalam, Ganesh -
wren ng thornton