Re: [BuildStream] BuildStream releasing model

[Agustín Benito Bethencourt <agustin benito codethink co uk>]

Hi,

On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 10:18:54 CEST Paul Sherwood via Buildstream-list 
wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 08:28, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 16:51 +0200, Paul Sherwood via Buildstream-list
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > as discussed on IRC today (from [1] onwards) I (and others) think
> > > that 
> > > the BuildStream releasing model is confusing for new users and would 
> > > like to suggest that we change it now, rather than later.
> > >
> > > IIUC understand it Tristan chose the current model because it is 
> > > commonly used in GNOME projects, but I don't think that's a good 
> > > justification.
> >
> > I most certainly did not, I have been using these versioning semantics
>
> My mistake, then, sorry.
>
> > for projects regardless of their association to GNOME, because the
> > even/odd minor point numbering scheme provides context about what is
> > stable/dev, where alternative numbering schemes don't communicate that
> > well.
>
> Please let's not use 'stable' since what engineers typically mean by
> 'stable' is often not what users expect or need.

In Open Source, the original meaning of "stable" versions were based on one 
of the definitions of the word:

* "(of an object or structure) not likely to give way or overturn; firmly 
fixed."

This is a very "physics/science" centric definition. Stable refers to "not 
moving". Given the background of most Open Source advocates back then, it 
made sense.

Later on, Open Source became more and more popular and many of the 
newcomers, with different background, understand stable as: 

"not likely to change or fail; firmly established."

Obviously the concept stable has become misleading and Paul S. is not the 
first one to point it out.

At least in my case, in the same way that I adapted when the enterprise 
industry embraced Open Source and pointed the nomenclature issue between 
"maintenance" and "support" (Open Source used the latter), I understand it 
might be time to adapt and stop using "stable".

There is no clear alternative at this point though. Maybe there is meat 
here for a nice blog post.

I will answer the proposal later on. I need to digest it. 

<snip>

Best Regards

-- 
Agustín Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant
Codethink Ltd
We respect your privacy.   See https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html