Re: [paho-dev] Post 1.2

[Roger Light <roger@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

To be clear there's nothing that I'm dying to break compatiblity for,
but it would be convenient at some point. In the past I've found that
once I think about making a breaking change, there are lots of other
things that pop up as good things to change at the same time. The
other thing is that becuase we're a bit of an unusual project at
Eclipse, it probably makes at least some sense to coordinate
breakages. It probably doesn't really matter but if the Python client
had breaking changes in the release after 1.2, then the Java client in
the one after that, then the C client the one after than, then at that
point the project would be on version 4.0.

There's no reason I can see not to continue with 1.2.x service releases.

I agree that not all components would have to join, that's effectively
the same as it is with all releases for us. I would say that if we
were planning to do something as radical as drop support for MQTT v3.1
then all clients should aim to do that at the same time, it just feels
right.

Cheers,

Roger

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Ian Craggs
<icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> first off I was thinking that I don't have much that I want to clean up, but
> a few moments more and I remembered there were some useful things that could
> be done.
>
> I guess if we did create a 2.0 with breaking changes, then a 1.x version
> would/could still continue, with continuing service releases as necessary?
>
> Maybe not all components would have to join a 2.0 release - only when they
> are ready with breaking changes?  This might seem weird, but I expect that
> people looking for a client library aren't concerned by the overall Paho
> release number - just the latest release of that component.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 05/31/2016 10:53 AM, Roger Light wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> 1.2 isn't quite upon us yet, but I have been thinking about plans for
>> the release after.
>>
>> I've seen a few discussions around the C/C++ library and the Python
>> library about not breaking backwards compatibility. I guess the other
>> libraries may be in a similar situation, so I'd like to hear what
>> you'd all think about the next release being 2.0 with breaking changes
>> as necessary to give us chance to do some tidying up.
>>
>> Along the same lines, is there any appetite for dropping support for MQTT
>> v3.1?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roger
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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