remoteStorage.js current and future version

[Jan-Christoph Borchardt]

Yesterday we had a discussion on the current state and immediate
future of remoteStorage.js – the question was:
* do we want to stabilize and document 0.6.9 more? That will give us a
stable solution, but will lead to delaying 0.7.0 more.
* or do we want to leave 0.6.9 as it is and focus on 0.7.0? This will
make starting out for new developers hard for the time being.

We opted for the latter, keeping 0.6.9 as it is and focusing on 0.7.0
The current working apps all use 0.6.9, but we don’t want new people
to necessarily use that, because then they would need to change that
to the better module architecture in 0.7.0 anyway. This would mean
extra work for everyone and as our current community is still small,
we don’t want to annoy anyone.
We need to clearly state what both versions are on unhosted.org /
remotestoragejs.com and communicate what is currently possible (with
0.6.9 and 0.7.0) and what will be (with 0.7.0).
Everything should be migrated to 0.7.0 step by step: Storages should
be updated to support both versions. And app developers could have a
branch in their app to do that, and then deploy that as soon as the
main storage providers (5apps, OwnCube and Portknox) are updated to
handle 0.7.0


Does that sound good? I probably forgot something so please feel free
to add it if you were at the session yesterday.

If you have more specific questions, Niklas the maintainer for
remoteStorage.js (cc’d). You can also participate in development and
if something is wrong please open an issue at
https://github.com/unhosted/remoteStorage.js/issues

[Ken Eucker]

I support moving forward with 0.7 as fast as possible and migrating people towards that as it has fundamental changes to the way app developers interact with the remote storage. Getting devs working with the modules is something that I see as the most important thing we can do at this stage.

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 10 September 2012 09:27, Jan-Christoph Borchardt <h...@jancborchardt.net> wrote:

Yesterday we had a discussion on the current state and immediate
future of remoteStorage.js – the question was:
* do we want to stabilize and document 0.6.9 more? That will give us a
stable solution, but will lead to delaying 0.7.0 more.
* or do we want to leave 0.6.9 as it is and focus on 0.7.0? This will
make starting out for new developers hard for the time being.

We opted for the latter, keeping 0.6.9 as it is and focusing on 0.7.0
The current working apps all use 0.6.9, but we don’t want new people
to necessarily use that, because then they would need to change that
to the better module architecture in 0.7.0 anyway. This would mean
extra work for everyone and as our current community is still small,
we don’t want to annoy anyone.
We need to clearly state what both versions are on unhosted.org /
remotestoragejs.com and communicate what is currently possible (with
0.6.9 and 0.7.0) and what will be (with 0.7.0).
Everything should be migrated to 0.7.0 step by step: Storages should
be updated to support both versions. And app developers could have a
branch in their app to do that, and then deploy that as soon as the
main storage providers (5apps, OwnCube and Portknox) are updated to
handle 0.7.0


Does that sound good? I probably forgot something so please feel free
to add it if you were at the session yesterday.

+1
 

If you have more specific questions, Niklas the maintainer for
remoteStorage.js (cc’d). You can also participate in development and
if something is wrong please open an issue at
https://github.com/unhosted/remoteStorage.js/issues

--

[Jan-Christoph Borchardt]

Martin uploaded the recording of that discussion:
http://soundcloud.com/xmartin/discussion-about-focussing-on (30
minutes)

The feeling before that was that we would document 0.6.9, but we
changed that. Good that we had the discussion.

> --
>
>
>