Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

On 10/15/2015 10:47 AM, Smylers wrote:
> Moritz Lenz writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
>>
>>> Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have 390+ modules, and hand-waving away all trouble of
>>>> maintaining them seems a bit lofty.
>>>
>>> Surely, the idea of keeping the release number below 1.0 is to warn
>>> early adopter developers that code is subject to change and thus in
>>> need of maintenance?
>>
>> ... a large percentage of the module updates are done by group of
>> maybe five to a dozen volunteers. ... 5 people updating 70% of 390
>> modules. Modules they are usually not all that familiar with, and
>> usually don't have direct access. So they need to go through the pull
>> request dance, waiting for reaction from the maintainer. In short, it
>> sucks.
>
> Thanks for the explanation, Moritz. That does make sense.
>
> I'm still a _little_ uneasy because that sounds a bit like the
> explanation of why Makefiles have to use tab characters:
>
>    I just did something simple with the pattern newline-tab. It worked,
>    it stayed. And then a few weeks later I had a user population of about
>    a dozen, most of them friends, and I didn't want to screw up my
>    embedded base. The rest, sadly, is history.
>
>      — Stuart Feldman http://stackoverflow.com/a/1765566/1366011

The problem is, that with this kind of argument one can defer the 
declaration of a "stable" version indefinitely.

May I remind everybody that we want a stable release this Christmas?

Cheers,
Moritz