[Swift-devel] Next Swift release

Mon Dec 6 15:36:01 CST 2010

I think 0.91 makes sense.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Michael Wilde wrote:

> Im much more focused on the content than on what we call it.
>
> Im happy to call it anything except 1.0
>
> Thus 0.91 would be fine by me - to leave some headroom for more point releases if we're not ready for 1.0 at end of Jan.
>
> Do people like that better?
>
> Lets decide this asap so we can make the branch and testable RC.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> I would think 0.95 > 0.90 >> 0.10 > 0.9 if i turn off the scientist
>> part and turn on the software engineer part of my brain :)
>>
>> just like how GNOME is now 2.28 , 2.30 , etc.
>>
>> But i do agree this type of numbering confuses scientists who are the
>> main users of this software.
>>
>> -Allan
>>
>> 2010/12/6 Ioan Raicu <iraicu at cs.uchicago.edu>:
>>> How about 0.91, or 0.95?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/6/2010 2:49 PM, Michael Wilde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> here's how i understand it (feel free to correct me):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.0 is the most recent stable branch ready for release--it's
>>>>> probably
>>>>> what most people *should* be downloading now if they want to start
>>>>> using swift, though our web site still has the 1.5 yr old .9
>>>>> listed as
>>>>> the release download.
>>>>
>>>> Right - and thus almost no users know about or use the 1.0 branch.
>>>> I only use trunk, as do all the users that I'm working with.
>>>>
>>>> I believe trunk should be the basis for the 12/20 release.
>>>>
>>>> I do not feel we should release test what's in any of the "stable"
>>>> branches.
>>>>
>>>> Instead I feel we should "save" the 1.0 branch for when we are
>>>> ready for
>>>> doing a 1.0 release: say Jan 31 2011.
>>>>
>>>> I propose we create an 0.10 stable branch as the release candidate
>>>> for a
>>>> Dec 20 0.10, and that we use tags to mark release candidates in
>>>> this branch.
>>>>
>>>>> trunk contains 'bleeding edge' code. for a 12/20
>>>>> release we'd want to release something that does not have any new
>>>>> features currently being added to it (just bug fixes).
>>>>
>>>> Yes - but just bug fixes over current trunk. No new features, just
>>>> bug
>>>> fixes from tests and any user-reported bugs. If we can make a
>>>> release
>>>> candidate this week, we can have users starting to test thus 0.10
>>>> RC in
>>>> parallel with our testing.
>>>>
>>>>> i'm suggesting
>>>>> that we do add *some* new doc since that won't break anything and
>>>>> we
>>>>> need to do some cleanup there.
>>>>
>>>> Doc improvements for 0.10 sound good to me, but need to balance the
>>>> effort
>>>> required vs testing 0.10.
>>>>
>>>>> but documenation for new features
>>>>> should go into the latest trunk doc.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But with "new features" defined as features beyond whats in
>>>> trunk
>>>> as of this moment.
>>>>
>>>>> if we want to look at releasing what's in trunk RIGHT NOW, it
>>>>> seems to
>>>>> be it should be brached and go into testing mode if we want to get
>>>>> it
>>>>> to a point where it's stable enough to release (?)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree, per above. Lets branch it asap.
>>>>
>>>> Does tagging releae candidates on this branch seem the way to go?
>>>>
>>>>> that said, .9 vs branch 1.0 is a pretty significant upgrade...is
>>>>> why i
>>>>> suggested .10 was rather confusing as a name for it.
>>>>
>>>> I took the name 0.10 from a suggestion by Ben (long ago) to deal
>>>> with the
>>>> fact that we may need more point-releases between 0.9 and 1.0.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that 0.10 is a *bit* confusing, but Im hoping that this
>>>> release
>>>> has about a 6-week lifetime from 12/20 to 1/31.
>>>>
>>>> Sound OK?
>>>>
>>>> - Mike
>>>>
>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~sk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Michael Wilde< wilde at mcs.anl.gov>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Im loosing track, but I thought trunk will become branch 0.10?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to name it based on what we're trying to say to the user
>>>>> community: this next release I feel is still pre-1.0 quality.
>>>>> After
>>>>> more doc cleanup and usability cleanup and web polishing, I feel
>>>>> we're
>>>>> ready to try to make a broader announcement and call it 1.0. Im
>>>>> thinking end of this January for that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> feel free, justin. i'm currently editing stuff that i think should
>>>>> go
>>>>> into doc for the 12/20 release (e.g. describing features that
>>>>> exist
>>>>> but aren't documented, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> so, branch 1.0 will become release 0.10...seems a bit confusing to
>>>>> me...also considering the differences between 0.9 and what we're
>>>>> releasing doesn't calling it 1.0 make sense? just a thought...
>>>>>
>>>>> ~sk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Justin M Wozniak<
>>>>> wozniak at mcs.anl.gov
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds great- I was actually thinking about setting up the
>>>>> branch-specific docs later this week, do you already have a start
>>>>> on
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Sarah Kenny wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so, my expectation for the release, as we've discussed somewhat on
>>>>> the
>>>>> list
>>>>> already, is to put out swift 1.0 on 12/20 which, as i see it,
>>>>> involves
>>>>> primarily editing of the documentation/web content more so than
>>>>> anything
>>>>> else since all new code (and documentation associated with the new
>>>>> code)
>>>>> going into trunk is expected to be in the 1.1. release--which
>>>>> hopefully we
>>>>> can have out in the next few months. i'm also assuming we're
>>>>> sticking
>>>>> with
>>>>> the plan to allow each release to have its own doc version along
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>> code.
>>>>>
>>>>> let me know if anyone thinks there are other things that
>>>>> can/should go
>>>>> into
>>>>> the 12/20 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~sk
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Michael Wilde< wilde at mcs.anl.gov>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah is going to take the lead in producing the next Swift
>>>>> release,
>>>>> and
>>>>> will propose a release definition and plan. We want to have the
>>>>> release done
>>>>> by Dec 20.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Swift-devel mailing list
>>>>> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
>>>>> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Allan M. Espinosa <http://amespinosa.wordpress.com>
>> PhD student, Computer Science
>> University of Chicago <http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~aespinosa>
>
>

-- 
Justin M Wozniak