On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:26:50PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: >> > I have an alternate idea too: "collection" type modules would >> > use arbitrary integer versions starting with 1 and increase only if the >> > content undergoes a major switch. ALL module streams would contain EOL >> > information after the version number separated by a ":". This EOL info >> > would be a date as above, or the string "latest", _or_ the string >> > "stable", indicating that no abi-breaking changes are expected ever and >> > that we basically have no known EOL. >> I like simple integer approach and it feels natural from an >> engineer's point of view. I think. I can also imagine using >> years or years.months, depending on how often the module >> maintainer decides to release a new... thing. >> >> Like "tools 2017", "tools 2017.6". *shrugs* >> But I don't really have a preference. >> >> I wouldn't include EOL directly in the stream (i.e. branch) >> name but I totally agree it needs to be prominently displayed >> in any user interface that deals with modules. No matter where >> the tools get it from. > > I really, really don't want anyone creating new modules without > considering lifecycle. Forcing it into the stream name is: I agree with lifecycle being required. I disagree completely with it being in the stream name. It doesn't make sense at all for a large variety of reasons. It's a cheap hack to get what you really want, and I think it's just going to incur technical debt we should avoid in the first place. Modularity is new. It's different. It will be hard at first. Let's not hamstring ourselves from the start. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
