[rspec-devel] Translated Specs?

[Dan North]

David Chelimsky wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
I agree - I don't think the matcher changes are significant enough to 
warrant bumping the major release number, and 1.0 is still very new. I 
didn't mean to give the impression I want to see a 2.0 release number 
any time soon. The point I was making is that it's important to manage 
the message around breaking backward compatibility with a 1.x release.

Cheers,
Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/attachments/20070820/647193fb/attachment.html