search

rtgibbons / grunt-swig

Static site compiler using swig
MIT License
16 stars 23 forks source link

Version 1.0.0 Release and Maintenance Discussion #33

Open kengoldfarb opened 10 years ago

kengoldfarb commented 10 years ago

Version 1.0.0 Release Discussion

@rtgibbons I'm willing to help with maintenance. Here are some initial thoughts.

I propose...

Versioning Going Forward

@rtgibbons @nickpack @zdwolfe @mrgamer - Thoughts?

colthreepv commented 10 years ago

I really appreciate your initative, as i think this project is really valid to generate small static sites! Will try and help in the integration of features, at the moment I can't think of anything else of general usefulness... bravo!

nickpack commented 10 years ago

I may have some time to work on this next week, one thing missing from the lists above is the test suite - this is something that has always needed improvement. We shouldnt really be adding features without a decent test suite to back them up.

nickpack commented 10 years ago

Might I suggest along with semver that we use gitflow as this makes managing PRs, releases and hotfixes a lot easier.

zdwolfe commented 10 years ago

I agree with Nick. Version 1.0.0 should include no more new features, but have a test suite for major features that work today. Unless we have a high degree of certainty that we aren't making breaking API changes, there's no point following semver.

Zach On Aug 27, 2014 1:52 AM, "Nick Pack" notifications@github.com wrote:

Might I suggest along with semver that we use gitflow as this makes managing PRs, releases and hotfixes a lot easier.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/issues/33#issuecomment-53542704.

kengoldfarb commented 10 years ago

I agree that a more robust test suite is a great idea. And naturally new features should definitely include tests.

I disagree about not adding new features though. I think v1.0 should include new features and have tests for those new features.

@zdwolfe - I was expecting that we WOULD be making breaking api changes which is why I'm suggesting we change the major version number. That way anyone using the existing 0.2 version would be able to continue using the old version.

Then going forward after v1.0, which includes the better test suite, we should be able to follow semver.

@nickpack - completely agree with following gitflow methodology

kengoldfarb commented 10 years ago

@nickpack - updated the 1.0 feature list to include better testsuite

nickpack commented 10 years ago

@zdwolfe @kengoldfarb I wasnt saying don't release new features, was just stating that the test suite should be in line with it.

kengoldfarb commented 10 years ago

@nickpack @zdwolfe @mrgamer @rtgibbons - I just added a branch with a big refactoring of stuff here: https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/tree/proposed-updates-ken

Check it out and let me know what you think. There's a test project using the new config here for reference: https://github.com/kengoldfarb/grunt-swig-test

Also the readme is updated with the new options.

It's still missing some stuff like a good test suite but most everything else from the list above should be addressed.

zdwolfe commented 10 years ago

Ken,

Do you think you could submit it as a pull request so it's easier to see the diff? Even if it's a substantial difference, I find PRs are a good venue for seeing changes.

Thanks, Zach

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ken Goldfarb notifications@github.com wrote:

@nickpack https://github.com/nickpack @zdwolfe https://github.com/zdwolfe @mrgamer https://github.com/mrgamer @rtgibbons https://github.com/rtgibbons - I just added a branch with a big refactoring of stuff here: https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/tree/proposed-updates-ken

Check it out and let me know what you think. There's a test project using the new config here for reference: https://github.com/kengoldfarb/grunt-swig-test

Also the readme is updated with the new options.

It's still missing some stuff like a good test suite but most everything else from the list above should be addressed.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/issues/33#issuecomment-60176867.

kengoldfarb commented 10 years ago

Pretty close to a full rewrite. PR is here: https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/pull/37/files