Roadmap for 3.1
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Antonin Delpeuch (lists)
Nov 18, 2018, 7:33:47 AM11/18/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
The Jackson migration is making good progress - but I think we should
make a 3.1 final release before merging that as it will inevitably bring
in bugs and incompatibilities with most extensions.
For 3.1 we already have a few bug fixes (keep them coming!) but maybe
not enough to justify a new release immediately. I was thinking I could
potentially finish the i18n migration to the Wikimedia library, so we
can finally have a working language fallback in 3.1.
Do you see any other bug that you would like to address before 3.1?
Cheers,
Antonin
The Jackson migration is making good progress - but I think we should
make a 3.1 final release before merging that as it will inevitably bring
in bugs and incompatibilities with most extensions.
For 3.1 we already have a few bug fixes (keep them coming!) but maybe
not enough to justify a new release immediately. I was thinking I could
potentially finish the i18n migration to the Wikimedia library, so we
can finally have a working language fallback in 3.1.
Do you see any other bug that you would like to address before 3.1?
Cheers,
Antonin
Owen Stephens
Nov 18, 2018, 8:45:33 AM11/18/18
to OpenRefine Development
I think we should probably fix
I've just started work on
but I don't know if we have to aim at 3.1 for this since it is a new feature
I completely agree that migration to the new i18n library would be a good thing (i.e. completing https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/pull/1285)
It would be good to work through the list of issues currently marked as bugs and decide what we are doing about them in terms of targetting a release - perhaps we should pick some of these off (there are a couple in relation to 'cross' and a couple in relation to imports) for 3.1?
Owen
Thad Guidry
Nov 18, 2018, 9:46:32 AM11/18/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
If this is an easy fix, then several folks would be really happy...
Cannot export a file if the "blank" tab opened after a first export is not closedhttps://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1664
This one also was agreed to merge in after the last release 3.0 and so that means 3.1 , but perhaps Antonin is still a bit worried on this one, but I am not.
https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/pull/1666 --> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1662
I'll leave it to you guys to decide. I would like to see you guys do more Milestone labeling. It's harder for me to know the level of effort on some of these, and if it means setting to 3.5 or even 4.0 on the milestone on those that have no milestone set.
We will need to definitely have a Tag party - Triage meeting (2-3 hours) to get through some of these, after the 3.1 release , and before 3.5 release.
Martin Magdinier
Nov 19, 2018, 8:50:07 PM11/19/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the good work.
One quick note regarding release naming should we following https://semver.org/ ? If I understand properly the Jackson migration will introduce a lot of break in term of backward compatibility. Should we reflect it with a 4.0 version?
One quick note regarding release naming should we following https://semver.org/ ? If I understand properly the Jackson migration will introduce a lot of break in term of backward compatibility. Should we reflect it with a 4.0 version?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thad Guidry
Nov 19, 2018, 11:41:10 PM11/19/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
Martin,
Yes we do use Semantic Versioning. But our application is in a different role than was designed for what is mentioned in semver.org
I think waiting to move to 4.0 version once our API does change later on with further work from Antonin on the back/front separation, then that would be a good time.
For now I think its fine for 3.5 when we introduce Jackson as part of a release. That's how I setup our current Milestone, with 4.0 as the UI work meaning to users that OpenRefine will be working quite a bit different for the user, but better.
But I'm only 1 vote, so ...
-1 to 4.0 version for Jackson
+1 to 3.5 version for Jackson
Antonin Delpeuch (lists)
Nov 20, 2018, 5:36:36 AM11/20/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
About the version:
Martin that is a good question indeed!
I agree it would be useful to advertise the incompatibilities in a clear
way. However, the change of build system (ant to maven) for 3.1 was
arguably a similarly breaking change, and we might do other such
migrations (replacing butterfly) soon… so if we go down that route we
might quickly end up at version 5.0 or 6.0 with very few user-facing
improvements - that could send out the wrong message, I think?
Thad why do you suggest 3.5? That milestone contains a lot of long term
issues. I think we should just go for 3.2 or 4.0 - I don't see a reason
to go from 3.1 to 3.5 directly?
I have created a milestone for 3.2 (which we can rename to 4.0 and push
back the others) and added the issues mentioned in this thread.
Thad I'm all in for using milestones but I think it's important to
discuss how we prioritize tasks in email threads like this one. :) We
can have calls too but they are harder to schedule across timezones and
there is no record of these so it's harder to keep track of who said
what and which decisions were taken.
Cheers,
Antonin
On 11/20/18 4:40 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Yes we do use Semantic Versioning. But our application is in a
> different role than was designed for what is mentioned in semver.org
> <http://semver.org>
Martin that is a good question indeed!
I agree it would be useful to advertise the incompatibilities in a clear
way. However, the change of build system (ant to maven) for 3.1 was
arguably a similarly breaking change, and we might do other such
migrations (replacing butterfly) soon… so if we go down that route we
might quickly end up at version 5.0 or 6.0 with very few user-facing
improvements - that could send out the wrong message, I think?
Thad why do you suggest 3.5? That milestone contains a lot of long term
issues. I think we should just go for 3.2 or 4.0 - I don't see a reason
to go from 3.1 to 3.5 directly?
I have created a milestone for 3.2 (which we can rename to 4.0 and push
back the others) and added the issues mentioned in this thread.
Thad I'm all in for using milestones but I think it's important to
discuss how we prioritize tasks in email threads like this one. :) We
can have calls too but they are harder to schedule across timezones and
there is no record of these so it's harder to keep track of who said
what and which decisions were taken.
Cheers,
Antonin
On 11/20/18 4:40 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Yes we do use Semantic Versioning. But our application is in a
> different role than was designed for what is mentioned in semver.org
> I think waiting to move to 4.0 version once our API does change later on
> with further work from Antonin on the back/front separation, then that
> would be a good time.
> For now I think its fine for 3.5 when we introduce Jackson as part of a
> release. That's how I setup our current Milestone, with 4.0 as the UI
> work meaning to users that OpenRefine will be working quite a bit
> different for the user, but better.
>
> But I'm only 1 vote, so ...
>
> -1 to 4.0 version for Jackson
> +1 to 3.5 version for Jackson
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:50 PM Martin Magdinier
> <martin.m...@gmail.com <mailto:martin.m...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the good work.
> One quick note regarding release naming should we
> following https://semver.org/ ? If I understand properly the Jackson
> migration will introduce a lot of break in term of backward
> compatibility. Should we reflect it with a 4.0 version?
>
>
> Le dim. 18 nov. 2018 à 09:46, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thadg...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
> with further work from Antonin on the back/front separation, then that
> would be a good time.
> For now I think its fine for 3.5 when we introduce Jackson as part of a
> release. That's how I setup our current Milestone, with 4.0 as the UI
> work meaning to users that OpenRefine will be working quite a bit
> different for the user, but better.
>
> But I'm only 1 vote, so ...
>
> -1 to 4.0 version for Jackson
> +1 to 3.5 version for Jackson
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 7:50 PM Martin Magdinier
> <martin.m...@gmail.com <mailto:martin.m...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the good work.
> One quick note regarding release naming should we
> following https://semver.org/ ? If I understand properly the Jackson
> migration will introduce a lot of break in term of backward
> compatibility. Should we reflect it with a 4.0 version?
>
>
> Le dim. 18 nov. 2018 à 09:46, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com
>
> If this is an easy fix, then several folks would be really happy...
> Cannot export a file if the "blank" tab opened after a first
> export is not closed
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1664
>
> This one also was agreed to merge in after the last release 3.0
> and so that means 3.1 , but perhaps Antonin is still a bit
> worried on this one, but I am not.
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/pull/1666 -->
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1662
>
> I'll leave it to you guys to decide. I would like to see you
> guys do more Milestone labeling. It's harder for me to know the
> level of effort on some of these, and if it means setting to 3.5
> or even 4.0 on the milestone on those that have no milestone set.
> We will need to definitely have a Tag party - Triage meeting
> (2-3 hours) to get through some of these, after the 3.1 release
> , and before 3.5 release.
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com>.
> If this is an easy fix, then several folks would be really happy...
> Cannot export a file if the "blank" tab opened after a first
> export is not closed
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1664
>
> This one also was agreed to merge in after the last release 3.0
> and so that means 3.1 , but perhaps Antonin is still a bit
> worried on this one, but I am not.
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/pull/1666 -->
> https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/issues/1662
>
> I'll leave it to you guys to decide. I would like to see you
> guys do more Milestone labeling. It's harder for me to know the
> level of effort on some of these, and if it means setting to 3.5
> or even 4.0 on the milestone on those that have no milestone set.
> We will need to definitely have a Tag party - Triage meeting
> (2-3 hours) to get through some of these, after the 3.1 release
> , and before 3.5 release.
>
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
Thad Guidry
Nov 20, 2018, 7:57:40 AM11/20/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:36 AM Antonin Delpeuch (lists) <li...@antonin.delpeuch.eu> wrote:
About the version:
Martin that is a good question indeed!
I agree it would be useful to advertise the incompatibilities in a clear
way. However, the change of build system (ant to maven) for 3.1 was
arguably a similarly breaking change, and we might do other such
migrations (replacing butterfly) soon… so if we go down that route we
might quickly end up at version 5.0 or 6.0 with very few user-facing
improvements - that could send out the wrong message, I think?
Yes that is what I was trying to get across also.
Thad why do you suggest 3.5? That milestone contains a lot of long term
issues. I think we should just go for 3.2 or 4.0 - I don't see a reason
to go from 3.1 to 3.5 directly?
Was just a suggestion. I will leave that up to you and Owen, since this is more about your comfort level and what makes sense for grouping together development of changes.
I have created a milestone for 3.2 (which we can rename to 4.0 and push
back the others) and added the issues mentioned in this thread.
Great ! Was hoping you would do that. I see only 1 issue, and that is fine.
Since we are at the end of our budget for this year, its open game for the tasks you want to work on beyond the Jackson migration and Front/Back separation.
Thad I'm all in for using milestones but I think it's important to
discuss how we prioritize tasks in email threads like this one. :) We
can have calls too but they are harder to schedule across timezones and
there is no record of these so it's harder to keep track of who said
what and which decisions were taken.
Agree, since we can't really use Milestone views themselves since things might bounce around as we change the Milestones.
I really was just trying to get us all on the same page. Email is ok for that, sure. Remember that we also have Gitter, which is recorded, archived and indexed and searched by search engines.
I made a private room for just Developers and invited us all to that. You can use markdown and prefix issues with # and just click the triple dot next to the timestamp on each message to quote or reply to make it easier to group conversations together in the room, and search magnifying glass is on the left.
I'm not forcing you to use Gitter, but I think it would make things easier for us overall and we should try it for a month.
(At Ericsson, we use ChatOps like Gitter, a lot for this sort of thing, since its persistent threaded conversation)
Cheers,
Antonin
Martin Magdinier
Nov 22, 2018, 9:28:14 PM11/22/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
So I guess all 3.x version will introduce break changes :)
I'd rather keep the numbering logical and do 3.2 after 3.1
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com.
Antonin Delpeuch (lists)
Nov 26, 2018, 8:20:00 AM11/26/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
It looks like we have all we need for a 3.1 release!
Unless anyones sees anything outstanding I will merge the remaining PRs
and cut out the release in the coming days.
Antonin
On 11/23/18 11:28 AM, Martin Magdinier wrote:
> So I guess all 3.x version will introduce break changes :)
> I'd rather keep the numbering logical and do 3.2 after 3.1
> Martin
>
>
> Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 07:57, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thadg...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
> <https://gitter.im/OpenRefine/Developers> and invited us all to
Unless anyones sees anything outstanding I will merge the remaining PRs
and cut out the release in the coming days.
Antonin
On 11/23/18 11:28 AM, Martin Magdinier wrote:
> So I guess all 3.x version will introduce break changes :)
> I'd rather keep the numbering logical and do 3.2 after 3.1
> Martin
>
>
> Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 07:57, Thad Guidry <thadg...@gmail.com
> that. You can use markdown and prefix issues with # and just click
> the triple dot next to the timestamp on each message to quote or
> reply to make it easier to group conversations together in the room,
> and search magnifying glass is on the left.
> I'm not forcing you to use Gitter, but I think it would make things
> easier for us overall and we should try it for a month.
> (At Ericsson, we use ChatOps like Gitter, a lot for this sort of
> thing, since its persistent threaded conversation)
>
> Cheers,
> Antonin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com>.
> the triple dot next to the timestamp on each message to quote or
> reply to make it easier to group conversations together in the room,
> and search magnifying glass is on the left.
> I'm not forcing you to use Gitter, but I think it would make things
> easier for us overall and we should try it for a month.
> (At Ericsson, we use ChatOps like Gitter, a lot for this sort of
> thing, since its persistent threaded conversation)
>
> Cheers,
> Antonin
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com>.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenRefine Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to openrefine-de...@googlegroups.com
Thad Guidry
Nov 26, 2018, 9:34:01 AM11/26/18
to openref...@googlegroups.com
Owen Stephens
Nov 27, 2018, 4:37:06 AM11/27/18
to OpenRefine Development
Just found a bug in the 3.1 beta - probably needs fixing before we release
Not had time to investigate it yet
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages