I think there's a marketing merit to issuing a 1.0.0 release.
Regards Antoine. Le 07/06/2019 à 20:05, Wes McKinney a écrit : > So one idea is that we could call the next release 1.14.0. So the > second number is the API version number. This encodes a sequencing of > the evolution of the API. The library APIs are already decoupled from > the binary serialization protocol, so I think we merely have to state > that API changes and protocol changes are not related to each other. > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:58 PM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> It brings up an interesting point... do we couple the stability of the apis >> with the stability of the protocol. If the protocol is stable, we should >> start providing guarantees for it. How do we want to express these >> different velocities? >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:48 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 07/06/2019 à 19:44, Jacques Nadeau a écrit : >>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:25 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Wes, >>>>> >>>>> Le 07/06/2019 à 17:42, Wes McKinney a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> I think >>>>>> this would have a lot of benefits for project onlookers to remove >>>>>> various warnings around the codebase around stability and cautions >>>>>> against persistence of protocol data. It's fair to say that if we _do_ >>>>>> make changes in the future, that there will be a transition path for >>>>>> migrate persisted data, should it ever come to that. >>>>> >>>>> I think that's a good idea, but perhaps the stability promise shouldn't >>>>> cover the Flight protocol yet? >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>>>> I would suggest a "1.0.0" release either as our next release (instead >>>>>> of 0.14.0) or the release right after that (if we need more time to >>>>>> get affairs in order), with the guidance for users of: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should first do a regular 0.14.0 with all that's on our plate >>>>> right now, then work towards a 1.0.0 as the release following that. >>>> >>>> What is different from your perspective? If the protocol hasn't changed >>> in >>>> over a year, why not call it 1.0? >>> >>> I would say that perhaps some API cleanup is in order. Remove >>> deprecated ones, review experimental APIs, perhaps mark experimental >>> certain APIs that we forgot to... >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Antoine. >>>
