[rspec-devel] Translated Specs?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/20/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/07, Dan North <dan at tastapod.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Forgive me chiming in here.
> >
> >  My understanding of the conventions for 3-part numbering are:
> >
> >  Major release (1.x -> 2.0) can break compatibility with deprecated APIs
> >  Minor release (1.3, -> 1.4) maintains backward compatibility but can
> > introduce new interfaces
> >  Patch release (1.3.2 -> 1.3.3) is a bugfix that doesn't change any
> > (significant) APIs
> >
>
> This is a good convention that I think we should have as a guideline.
> When it comes to the mock constraint args, I think it's a fairly
> insignificant part of the API. Sure - many people are already using
> it, but we also have a translator that will translate 99% of them (not
> scientific).
>
> I therefore think we can release 1.1 and remove support for the
> deprecated constraints - doing a 2.0 seems a little drastic.

I also feel like 2.0 is a bit pre-mature. We only released 1.0 a few
months ago, we're just getting the story runner merged in now, etc. I
think the story runner needs to bake in for a while, let ppl use it,
see what sorts of feature requests come up, etc, before we just dump
out a 2.0 release.

2 cents.

>
> However, when RBehave and Brian's cleanup of the internals are merged
> back to trunk we could consider it. (But I'm still not sure - the
> public API remains mostly unchanged).
>
> Aslak
>
> >  (This is stolen from http://jmock.org/versioning.html).
> >
> >  If you want to remove the old non-matcher expectations (and thereby break
> > backward compatibility), you might want to consider a 2.0 release. So the
> > question is, are we ready for a 2.0 release yet?*
> >
> >  Cheers,
> >  Dan
> >
> >  * For my opinion on this you only need buy me a beer - I'm pretty cheap.
> >
> >
> >
> >  David Chelimsky wrote:
> >  On 8/19/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  On 8/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  On 8/19/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  On 8/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  On 8/18/07, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Can somebody explain what the translated specs are?
> >
> >  Funny - that was added when we were preparing for 1.0 as a test for
> > the translator. The translator is still necessary, but the translated
> > specs are obsolete at this point (as there is nothing to actually
> > translate).
> >
> > Aslak - can you weigh in on this? Unless you think otherwise, I'd like
> > to kill that part of the pre_commit process.
> >
> >
> >  The translator translates deprecated code (which we still have - the
> > matchers).
> >
> >  Do you mean the mock argument constraints that are expressed as Symbols?
> >
> >
> >  Yes
> >
> >  OK - so when we release 1.1, we should yank the deprecated code and
> > the translated specs, agree?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  As long as we keep deprecated code around and want a translator that
> > can translate it we should keep this part of the build around. It
> > verifies that translated code still passes.
> >
> > Aslak
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  To me they look
> > exactly the same as the regular example suite.
> > Is the translated specs rake task dead code?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>