Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [paho-dev] Paho 1.1 Release - Versions (?!?)

Hi Dominik,

we've made a start with this table (well Nick O'Leary has).  Ideally I'd like to stay away from duplicating the download links but if this is the main alternative, so there are only two places, then that wouldn't be so bad.

I see you had a details link -- I'll add that it in to the table soon.

Ian

On 02/27/2015 08:52 AM, Dominik Obermaier wrote:
Hi Ian,

thanks for the extensive answer. The fact that Eclipse requires releases to be numbered does indeed make it much more complicated and rules out option 1 (drop version numbers for umbrella releases).

Out of interest: Does anyone know what reason is behind that (artificial) restriction how releases are numbered? It seems like umbrella releases like in the case of Paho are not considered in this requirement or am I mistaken?

Regarding the website: I think it would be very good to have a table on the main page like this:


| Language | Version | Download | Details |
| Java         |   1.0.2   |      LINK     |   LINK |
………..

An advantage would be people would find out immediately which version is current (interesting for people who are using Maven/Gradle/Ivy and just want to update the version numbers), people can download the most current binaries with a click and one can see at a glance if things are already production ready (e.g. a 0.0.1 version number doesn’t give confidence…). So everything important is accessable with one click and details can still be reached if needed. Btw, I like the detail pages a lot. 

The umbrella release version (like 1.1) does not need to be mentioned in this case because most people I’ve talked to are only interested in one library in the language of their choice, so they usually don’t care about the other languages versions or even the umbrella project version.

Does this make sense to you?

Dominik

On 27 Feb 2015 at 00:47:27, Ian Craggs (icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

Hi Dominik,

thanks for your comments - it's never too late!  I agree with you that it's not an ideal situation.  I came to the conclusion that having the same version number for all components just wouldn't work when Paolo contributed his .Net client.  The M2MQTT version number (3.6 at the time), was important to Paolo.  I felt it was better to allow each component its own number.  Newer components might want to start at 1.0 when they reach "production" level for the first time.

I prefer your option 1.  I like that idea a lot - especially a funny name sequence :-)  The Eclipse project documents have this requirement for release names:

The release name must start with a number, and may contain major and minor version numbers, a service number, and extra information; e.g. "9", "5.6 (Kepler)", or "1.0.1

The starting number could be a simple sequence number, then followed by the name.

You said "Please add the current version numbering for each library to the Paho main page."  Which page do you mean - https://www.eclipse.org/paho/ ?  (I have updated the downloads page to the latest level for each package - https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.paho/downloads.)

That people are still using the 0.4 version of the Java client and not aware it is outdated is a problem I'm aware of.  I removed it from the Nexus repo but it caused an outcry so we had to put it back.  The problem is that it has a simpler name than the later builds so people tend to find it first.  I have updated the downloads page, and the Java client page at https://www.eclipse.org/paho/clients/java/ with the note:

Note: The Java client library and utility components mqtt-client and mqtt-utility are old and only kept for reference. They should not be used and may be removed in the future. org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3 and org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility should be used instead.

But the situation could still probably be improved.

Ian

On 02/26/2015 01:31 PM, Dominik Obermaier wrote:
First of all, thanks a lot to everyone who contributed to the Paho 1.1 release, awesome work!

I don’t know if this was already addressed, but the versioning of the single parts of Paho is very confusing - at least for me. From the release notes for the Paho 1.1 release from [1]:

Updated versions of the existing client libraries:

1) Roger Light’s Python MQTT client, version 1.1
2) The full fat Posix/Windows/MacOS C client, updated to version 1.0.3
3) The Java MQTT client, updated to version 1.0.2
4) The _javascript_ MQTT client, updated to version 1.0.1

I know it’s pretty tough to find a consistent version numbering for all libraries, especially since they can have different development speeds. From my point of view and from the feedback I had from other people, it’s extremely confusing for any end-user who is not interested in all details and sub-libraries of Paho, that the Paho Release 1.1 contains Java Paho 1.0.2. In fact, this is not really obvious from the current Paho web site which version to use. 

I have two possible competing suggestions for version numbering and the release-“train”:

1. Name the Paho Release “Train”, not with numbers but with names. That would mean Paho does not use any version numbering for scheduled releases but let’s say it’s named  "Q1/2015 release” or “Mars release" or even give some funny names like the Linux kernel guys do. But don’t use version numbers which do not match with the sub-libraries in the umbrella release. In this case, each library can have it’s own version numbering. It’s very important to have a table available with all concrete version numbers on the website and in the release notes, otherwise it’s still too hard for people figuring out the right versions.

2. The Paho umbrella releases are numbered (like 1.1). In this case, all client libraries *must* use the exact same numbering (at least MAJOR and MINOR version numbers), so e.g. the _javascript_ and the Java library both have 1.1.0. After the initial Paho-“train" release, of course any sub-library can update bugfix versions accordingly if bugfix releases are done outside the release train. 

One general suggestions: Please add the current version numbering for each library to the Paho main page. It’s not always obvious what the current version of each library is.


Does any of these suggestions make sense to you? From my point of view any of these suggestions would greatly help increase usability and reduce confusion for users. Also, this may help to reduce the fragmentation of the Paho libraries (there are e.g. many 0.4.0 Paho users out there who don’t even know they have a very outdated version).

Hope I didn’t come too late for this discussion - if it was already discussed some other time, I apologize for bringing it back on the table. This is a very serious and important usability issue for end users in my opinion, though.


Best regards,
Dominik







_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev

--  
Ian Craggs                           
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx                 IBM United Kingdom
Paho Project Lead; Committer on Mosquitto

_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev

-- 
Ian Craggs                          
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx                 IBM United Kingdom
Paho Project Lead; Committer on Mosquitto


Back to the top