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

Release a new version? #530

Closed
viktorklang opened this issue Apr 8, 2021 · 14 comments
Closed

Release a new version? #530

viktorklang opened this issue Apr 8, 2021 · 14 comments
Assignees

Comments

@viktorklang
Copy link
Contributor

Hi all,

given that Reactive Streams has been relicensed, we should publish a new set of artifacts under the new license.

So the options we have:

A) Release a 1.0.3 PATCH release with only the license change beyond the 1.0.3 code
B) Release a 1.0.4 version with the current master/HEAD under the new license
C) Release a 1.1.0 version with the current master/HEAD under the new license
D) Release a 2.0.0 version with the current master/HEAD under the new license

@reactive-streams/contributors Thoughts? Ideas? Preferences?

@viktorklang viktorklang self-assigned this Apr 8, 2021
@akarnokd
Copy link
Contributor

akarnokd commented Apr 8, 2021

B

I'd reserve 2.0.0 for a more substantial expansion of the API.

@rkuhn
Copy link
Member

rkuhn commented Apr 8, 2021

Wouldn’t option D artificially split the ecosystem without any real reason to do so? I’m not a lawyer, so as a physicist I’d propose the evidence-based approach of considering this licensing change to be non-breaking until proven otherwise. Proof would have to arrive in the form of relevant complaints, reaching this repository after we do A or B. I’d propose a poll but unfortunately I’m not aware of a useful medium for conveying such a request (i.e. if we ask Twitter we may get an assortment of answers without learning much).

@simonbasle
Copy link

I'd vote for B as well

@OlegDokuka
Copy link
Member

B

@ktoso
Copy link
Contributor

ktoso commented May 5, 2021

"I am not a lawyer" prefaced, but... I don't see this change as needing a full major number: B sounds good to me.

@DougLea
Copy link
Contributor

DougLea commented May 5, 2021

Considering that this is being done solely for lawyers, votes without a "IANAL" disclaimer should carry more weight! I have no preference.

@barchetta
Copy link

barchetta commented Jul 1, 2021

Any ETA on this? Thanks!
Bump

@viktorklang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@reactive-streams/contributors Seems like the broad consensus is around option B—"1.0.4"

I'm currently in the process of setting up a completely new dev environment, so it would be very much appreciated if another contributor would be able to cut and publish that release. Any takers?

@barchetta
Copy link

Any news on 1.0.4?

@Nivedithaneethu
Copy link

Nivedithaneethu commented Jan 11, 2022

@viktorklang Is there any ETA on releasing a new version with the latest license?
Thanks

@viktorklang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Nivedithaneethu Apologies for the delay, @rkuhn would you be able to cut this release together with me?

@rkuhn
Copy link
Member

rkuhn commented May 12, 2022

I don’t think I still have publishing credentials, at least I can’t find them — I haven’t worked in the JVM ecosystem since 2016.

@viktorklang
Copy link
Contributor Author

@viktorklang
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reactive Streams 1.0.4 has been released.

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

9 participants