Major release required?

Hi all,

Since the release of rspec-2.0, I’ve been following Rubygems’ rational
versioning [1] as closely as possible. Patch releases (2.4.x) have only
had bug fixes, and minor releases (2.x.0) have had new features, but no
(intentionally) backward incompatible changes, which should require a
major (3.0) release.

The autotest extension in rspec-2.0 prefixes the command it generates
with ‘bundle exec’ if it sees a ‘Gemfile’ in the project root directory.
It turns out that this is not universally helpful, so there was a
request to have an opt-out.

It also turns out that autotest has a bundler plugin that prefixes the
command with ‘bundle exec’. To use an autotest plugin, you just require
it in a .autotest file in the project root. In this case:

require ‘autotest/bundler’

I think the right thing to do is to rely on the autotest plugin, but I
also think that this would require a 3.0 release, which feels a bit
grand for this situation. My question to you is: do you think this
warrants a major (3.0) release, or would it be an acceptable exception
to the rule (assuming proper fanfare and documentation)?

[1] http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7

Cheers,
David

I agree with you that to create a major release for this too grand.
Suitable fanfare and documentation is fine.

I mean since it’s an acceptable exception, since the core parts of RSpec
will still same, and autotest is somekind a “plus”. Generating an major
change, will make people think that RSpec was changed, with a lot of new
features and etc… And it’s not the case, in current case generate a
major
change for 3.0 will make a lot of confusion for users. WDYT?

Wilker Lúcio
http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio
Kajabi Consultant
+55 81 82556600

On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

also check for the option if you decide to do #1
end

I actually did implement a --skip-bundler option (not yet released), but
it has to be passed like this:

autotest – --skip-bundler

Considering that this is a total hack, and that I’d be removing it at
the next major release anyway, I really don’t want to introduce a hack
on top of a hack. I’d sooner do a 3.0 release now.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

It also turns out that autotest has a bundler plugin that prefixes the command
with ‘bundle exec’. To use an autotest plugin, you just require it in a .autotest
file in the project root. In this case:

def using_bundler?
File.exists?(’./Gemfile’) && !defined Autotest::Bundler # and
also check for the option if you decide to do #1
end

I actually did implement a --skip-bundler option (not yet released), but it has
to be passed like this:

autotest – --skip-bundler

Considering that this is a total hack, and that I’d be removing it at the next
major release anyway, I really don’t want to introduce a hack on top of a hack.
I’d sooner do a 3.0 release now.

I’m still trying to understand what you are proposing to change, and
what it breaks.

I guess you are proposing that the rspec autotest extension would
never prefix the rspec command with ‘bundle exec’ and this would break
folks using autotest with rspec who haven’t changed their .autotest
file.

And that you think that you should bump the whole rspec suite to
version 3 because of this? I guess this is because the autotest
‘extension’ isn’t really an extension, it’s in rspec-core.

What about those of us using other alternatives to autotest, e.g.
guard? I just looked at the guard code and changing rspec as a whole
to version 3 would break guard since it checks specifically for rspec
version 1 vs. 2 in order to determine whether to use ‘spec’ or ‘rspec’
as the base command.

If you bump rspec to v3 because of this, it looks like guard users
will need to freeze on rspec 2, at least until the author of
guard-rspec catches up. I guess that’s OK unless the latter takes too
long, and rspec continues to improve only on the version 3 branch.
That probably wouldn’t happen, and if it does I could fork guard-rspec
myself I guess.

But if you do, I think you should also break out the autotest
extension into a separate gem which is NOT required by rspec-core,
much like Rails 3 broke out ‘most-favored’ things like Test::Unit and
put alternatives like, say RSpec, and Cucumber on more of an equal
footing.


Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:15 AM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

I think the right thing to do is to rely on the autotest plugin, but I also
think that this would require a 3.0 release, which feels a bit grand for this
situation. My question to you is: do you think this warrants a major (3.0)
release, or would it be an acceptable exception to the rule (assuming proper
fanfare and documentation)?
Can’t something be done here as a non-breaking change? I can see two
things.

  1. add the requested option, I think this is optional

  2. in lib/autotest/rspec2.rb

    def using_bundler?
    File.exists?(’./Gemfile’) && !defined Autotest::Bundler # and
    also check for the option if you decide to do #1
    end


Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

On Jan 19, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

  1. in lib/autotest/rspec2.rb
    Considering that this is a total hack, and that I’d be removing it at the next
    major release anyway, I really don’t want to introduce a hack on top of a hack.
    I’d sooner do a 3.0 release now.

I’m still trying to understand what you are proposing to change, and
what it breaks.

I guess you are proposing that the rspec autotest extension would
never prefix the rspec command with ‘bundle exec’ and this would break
folks using autotest with rspec who haven’t changed their .autotest
file.

Correct.

And that you think that you should bump the whole rspec suite to
version 3 because of this? I guess this is because the autotest
‘extension’ isn’t really an extension, it’s in rspec-core.

Correct. And I’m trying to establish a consistent pattern in releases so
people can trust that minor and patch releases won’t introduce breaking
changes. This one is a bit of an outlier, and I started this thread to
see what ppl thought of treating it as such, but the more I think of it,
the more I’m convinced that this should not be an exception.

What about those of us using other alternatives to autotest, e.g.
guard? I just looked at the guard code and changing rspec as a whole
to version 3 would break guard since it checks specifically for rspec
version 1 vs. 2 in order to determine whether to use ‘spec’ or ‘rspec’
as the base command.

That’s unfortunate. Whether or not I do an rspec-3 release now,
adherence to Rubygems’ rational versioning policy will likely result in
an rspec-3 release in much less time than it took us to get to rspec-2.
When it comes out, rspec-3 will not represent a major rewrite or
significant API or functional changes. It will simply be an indicator
that there are backward-incompatible changes in that release and you
should accept that upgrade consciously and carefully.

If you bump rspec to v3 because of this, it looks like guard users
will need to freeze on rspec 2, at least until the author of
guard-rspec catches up. I guess that’s OK unless the latter takes too
long, and rspec continues to improve only on the version 3 branch.
That probably wouldn’t happen, and if it does I could fork guard-rspec
myself I guess.

Thanks for being willing to help out. We should probably hit guard-rspec
up with this now, though, so when rspec-3 does come along guard users
don’t have to take a hit at that point. Do you want to drive that?

But if you do, I think you should also break out the autotest
extension into a separate gem which is NOT required by rspec-core,
much like Rails 3 broke out ‘most-favored’ things like Test::Unit and
put alternatives like, say RSpec, and Cucumber on more of an equal
footing.

Definitely in the plan for rspec-3:
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/issue/285.

Cheers,
David

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

[…]

I think the right thing to do is to rely on the autotest plugin, but I also
think that this would require a 3.0 release, which feels a bit grand for this
situation. My question to you is: do you think this warrants a major (3.0)
release, or would it be an acceptable exception to the rule (assuming proper
fanfare and documentation)?

IMHO this case is a exception to the rule that we can live with.


Luis L.
AREA 17

Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupry

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Luis L. [email protected]
wrote:

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, David C. [email protected] wrote:

[…]

I think the right thing to do is to rely on the autotest plugin, but I also
think that this would require a 3.0 release, which feels a bit grand for this
situation. My question to you is: do you think this warrants a major (3.0)
release, or would it be an acceptable exception to the rule (assuming proper
fanfare and documentation)?

IMHO this case is a exception to the rule that we can live with.

Luis, you’re one of those early adopter types, aren’t you :slight_smile:

I’d like to spend some time establishing the rule before making
exceptions. Per other post this thread, I think I’ve got a workable
solution in place for the rspec-2.5 release.

Cheers,
David

On 21 January 2011 13:56, David C. [email protected] wrote:

(assuming proper fanfare and documentation)?

also check for the option if you decide to do #1

And that you think that you should bump the whole rspec suite to
guard? I just looked at the guard code and changing rspec as a whole
upgrade consciously and carefully.
have to take a hit at that point. Do you want to drive that?
Cheers,
David


rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Whilst its very noble to try and follow the ruby gems document to the
letter, some consideration has to be given to the overall effect of
rapidly
changing major version numbers on the project. RSpec has a very large
user
base, a close tie in with Rails major versions, in particular the idea
to
Rails 3 should use RSpec 2, and a history of changing major versions
very
infrequently with major consequences to the vast majority of users. This
I
think is a fair assessment of RSpec’s context re version numbers. To
move to
RSpec 3, for such a small change would be completely out of character
for
the project. To end up in 4 months time with RSpec 9 would be very
detrimental to the projects reputation.

So I think the pragmatic approach is a minor release with a big caveat
in
the history and a big announcement on the mailing list

All best

Andrew

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Andrew P. [email protected]
wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

turns out that this is not universally helpful, so there was a request to
for this situation. My question to you is: do you think this warrants a
def using_bundler?
the next major release anyway, I really don’t want to introduce a hack on
Correct.

functional changes. It will simply be an indicator that there are
Thanks for being willing to help out. We should probably hit guard-rspec
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/issue/285.
changing major version numbers on the project. RSpec has a very large user
base, a close tie in with Rails major versions, in particular the idea to
Rails 3 should use RSpec 2, and a history of changing major versions very
infrequently with major consequences to the vast majority of users. This I
think is a fair assessment of RSpec’s context re version numbers. To move to
RSpec 3, for such a small change would be completely out of character for
the project. To end up in 4 months time with RSpec 9 would be very
detrimental to the projects reputation.
So I think the pragmatic approach is a minor release with a big caveat in
the history and a big announcement on the mailing list

The goal here is to set a new standard that people can count on. Right
now, many rspec users count on upgrades breaking things, which is not
exactly the sort of reliability I’d like to convey.

I want to eliminate any perception of a binding between Rails and
RSpec releases. It’s one thing to have a compatibility mapping
(rspec-2 supports rails >= 3), but it’s entirely another to assume
that we need to wait for rails-4 to release rspec-3.

As for the timing of major releases, I’m thinking more like a major
release every 6 months to a year, not 7 more in 4 months time :slight_smile: And,
again, the idea is that major releases won’t be quite so major. They
simply indicate that there are breaking changes in the release, and
you should upgrade to that release knowingly.

I’ve found a solution that I think serves these goals well: rspec-2.5
will add the --skip-bundler option and deprecate the implicit addition
of ‘bundle exec’. It will still work as 2.4 does, but users will see a
deprecation warning explaining to use the autotest/bundler plugin or
the --skip-bundler option. When either of those options is applied,
the deprecation warning goes away.

When it comes time to release rspec-3, rspec-autotest will be
extracted from rspec-core, the --skip-bundler will no longer do
anything, and you’ll see a message saying so. At that point, you
either use the autotest/bundler plugin or not.

Thoughts?

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:47 AM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

release every 6 months to a year, not 7 more in 4 months time :slight_smile: And,

When it comes time to release rspec-3, rspec-autotest will be
extracted from rspec-core, the --skip-bundler will no longer do
anything, and you’ll see a message saying so. At that point, you
either use the autotest/bundler plugin or not.

Thoughts?

That sounds reasonably pragmatic to me.

Of course I’ve only had two sips of coffee this morning.


Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

]On 22 January 2011 09:47, David C. [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

(intentionally) backward incompatible changes, which should require

bit grand

  1. add the requested option, I think this is optional

I guess you are proposing that the rspec autotest extension would
Correct. And I’m trying to establish a consistent pattern in releases so
as the base command.

have to take a hit at that point. Do you want to drive that?
Cheers,
user
the history and a big announcement on the mailing list

The goal here is to set a new standard that people can count on. Right
now, many rspec users count on upgrades breaking things, which is not
exactly the sort of reliability I’d like to convey.

I want to eliminate any perception of a binding between Rails and
RSpec releases. It’s one thing to have a compatibility mapping
(rspec-2 supports rails >= 3), but it’s entirely another to assume
that we need to wait for rails-4 to release rspec-3.

Of course, and I wasn’t suggesting that rspec3 should wait for rails4.

As for the timing of major releases, I’m thinking more like a major

release every 6 months to a year, not 7 more in 4 months time :slight_smile: And,
again, the idea is that major releases won’t be quite so major. They
simply indicate that there are breaking changes in the release, and
you should upgrade to that release knowingly.

My concern is that people (especially project owners and people further
away from the project) seeing RSpec moving quickly to 3, 4, 5 will judge
the
project unstable and think that each change will involve a similar
amount of
work as moving from rspec1 to 2, or even Rails 2.x to 3.x. This would be
a
good (in innaccurate) argument for choosing a more ‘stable’ test tool.

A major release every 6 months to a year seems reasonable, but I’m not
convinced you could keep to this if this particular change and changes
like
it caused a major release.

I’ve found a solution that I think serves these goals well: rspec-2.5

will add the --skip-bundler option and deprecate the implicit addition
of ‘bundle exec’. It will still work as 2.4 does, but users will see a
deprecation warning explaining to use the autotest/bundler plugin or
the --skip-bundler option. When either of those options is applied,
the deprecation warning goes away.

The add an option and a deprecation warning approach seems an excellent
compromise to prepare for a more permanent solution in 3.0. Perhaps
there is
a pattern here to be applied to similar changes, thus giving advanced
users
time to use the new functionality in anger, and get feedback over a
period
of time.

All best

Andrew

On Jan 22, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Andrew P. wrote:

The autotest extension in rspec-2.0 prefixes the command it generates
I think the right thing to do is to rely on the autotest plugin, but

  1. in lib/autotest/rspec2.rb

file.
what ppl thought of treating it as such, but the more I think of it, the
release in much less time than it took us to get to rspec-2. When it comes
myself I guess.

Whilst its very noble to try and follow the ruby gems document to the
the history and a big announcement on the mailing list
Of course, and I wasn’t suggesting that rspec3 should wait for rails4.

As for the timing of major releases, I’m thinking more like a major
release every 6 months to a year, not 7 more in 4 months time :slight_smile: And,
again, the idea is that major releases won’t be quite so major. They
simply indicate that there are breaking changes in the release, and
you should upgrade to that release knowingly.

My concern is that people (especially project owners and people further away
from the project) seeing RSpec moving quickly to 3, 4, 5 will judge the project
unstable and think that each change will involve a similar amount of work as
moving from rspec1 to 2, or even Rails 2.x to 3.x. This would be a good (in
innaccurate) argument for choosing a more ‘stable’ test tool.

If breaking changes only happen in major releases, and that turns some
people away, then so be it. I’m hopeful that the ability to rely on
minor releases not breaking things will outweigh that concern for most.

I’ll soon be posting a more detailed explanation of the release policy
on http://relishapp.com/rspec, and blogging about it long before there
is a 3.0 release. If people read that (or fail to read it) and still
decide that this policy is a sign of instability, there’s not much that
I can do about that.

A major release every 6 months to a year seems reasonable, but I’m not convinced
you could keep to this if this particular change and changes like it caused a
major release.

I’m not saying there would be a release every time a change like this
came up. There will be a major release once enough of them pile up that
it makes sense to clean house.

I’ve found a solution that I think serves these goals well: rspec-2.5
will add the --skip-bundler option and deprecate the implicit addition
of ‘bundle exec’. It will still work as 2.4 does, but users will see a
deprecation warning explaining to use the autotest/bundler plugin or
the --skip-bundler option. When either of those options is applied,
the deprecation warning goes away.

The add an option and a deprecation warning approach seems an excellent
compromise to prepare for a more permanent solution in 3.0. Perhaps there is a
pattern here to be applied to similar changes,

That’s the idea.

thus giving advanced users time to use the new functionality in anger, and get
feedback over a period of time.

Early feedback would definitely be an added benefit.

Cheers,
David

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs