Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Limit scope of instability #555

Closed
codeflo opened this issue Jan 10, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed

Limit scope of instability #555

codeflo opened this issue Jan 10, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@codeflo
Copy link
Contributor

codeflo commented Jan 10, 2023

The homepage currently states that breaking changes are to be “expected”, and issue #208 explains that the current priority is on “finding the right featureset […] over reaching stability”. Both of those are refreshingly clear.

However, going forward, I wonder if there’s a path to some kind of “partial stability” before a full 1.0 that would already enable some production usecases, while not unnecessarily restricting further development and experimentation.

I’m thinking along the lines of marking a subset of features as “conditionally stable”. The idea would be that for people relying on those features, there would be a best effort to offer a migration path.

In particular, while those features or their API could change, they would be unlikely to be removed without any replacement. This would also imply offering a migration path for any changes to the underlying storage, see e.g. #433.

Anyway, that’s just a quick thought, I could be completely off the mark here.

@joepio
Copy link
Member

joepio commented Jan 10, 2023

Hi @codeflo, thanks for taking the time to share your interesting thoughts!

Having a list of things that are unlikely to be be removed or (severely) changed would be of value to potential users. I think that for many features, this is already the case. I think adding a STATUS.md file, describing stability of various features might be the way to go. Or maybe a page on atomic-data-docs. Anyways, one living document that contains a more detailed status report that specifies which features are (conditionally) stable.

This would also imply offering a migration path for any changes to the underlying storage, see e.g. #433.

I would definitely offer a (fully automated) migration path. Atomic-server auto-migrates whenever it is needed. Maybe I should communicate this more clearly.

@joepio
Copy link
Member

joepio commented Jan 10, 2023

@codeflo I've written a draft version. Does this look like what you had in mind?

https://github.com/atomicdata-dev/atomic-data-rust/pull/557/files

@codeflo
Copy link
Contributor Author

codeflo commented Jan 10, 2023

That's awesome, thanks!

joepio added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2023
joepio added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2023
@joepio
Copy link
Member

joepio commented Jan 10, 2023

Status.md is now part of the repo, and referred to from README and CHANGELOG!

Thanks @codeflo !

@joepio joepio closed this as completed Jan 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants