MicroProfile 2.0.1-RC2 ready for review

[Kevin Sutter]

Hi,
With some good input from @Emily, I reformatted the MicroProfile architecture document to more clearly demonstrate the slight difference for the 2.0.1 micro release.  This actually just follows the format of the 1.x architecture documents.  So, this is all good.  Please take another look.  I'd like to declare this done by end of week, if possible.  Thanks!

https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile/releases/tag/2.0.1-RC2

-- Kevin

[Kevin Sutter]

Nudge...  Some type of feedback (pro or con) would be appreciated before I pull the trigger on this release...

Thanks!
Kevin

[Edwin Derks]

Hi Kevin,

I think this defines the difference very clear. One suggestion: maybe change the "This is a micro release" part to "This is a patch release"? This follows naming in Maven's versioning convention (2.0.0 to 2.0.1) and you should not get questions about what "micro" means in this context.

Hope this helps,

Edwin

[Ondro Mihályi]

+1 for patch release. Callinf it micro release may be appealing but very confusing.

Ondro

[Kevin Sutter]

Okay...  I can understand the potential for confusion.  I can change it to "patch version" instead of "micro".  This is also consistent with semantic versioning terminology, even though we are not following the semantic versioning ideals...  :-)

Any other changes before I do an RC3 and declare this is "done"?

Thanks!
Kevin

[Emily Jiang]

I prefer micro release as we brand major (binary incompatible changes), minor (binary compatible changes - additions) and micro (bug releases). As this is purely a bug fix, it is perfect fit to call it macro release. Patch release does not fit in well with major, minor releases we have been using.

Thanks
Emily

[Ondro Mihályi]

Hi Emily,

Why patch release doesn't fit with major and minor? On the contrary, a "micro" release implies that there's some change but much smaller than in a minor version, which isn't the case. As you said, this is purely a bug fix, very often referred to as a "patch".

For me:

• major - significant new features, potentially breaking changes
• minor - additions, no breaking changes
• patch - no API and behavior modifications, only corrections, clarifications and bug fixes
  

For individual specs, a patch release is usually a TCK fix, which is a bug fix. For MP umbrella spec, there's no code involved, so a patch release would include a correction in written documents or released artifacts.

I haven't seen the term "micro" in connection to bug fixes or releases. Especially with MicroProfile, "micro" can be misleading, as it can be associated with something related to MicroProfile or MicroServices.

--Ondro

[Raymond Auge]

'Micro' is the term used for non-api, backward compatible changes in OSGi versioning. Generally these are bug fixes, but they could be other types of changes which are not necessarily limited to bugs, but improve the module in a way that breaks no one. E.g. like fixing some metadata, signing with a different key, changing an SCM url, adding a missing contributor, bumping a dependency, etc.

I'm not arguing against 'patch'. I'm just expressing that 'micro' _is_ used in this context by many.

Sincerely,

- Ray

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/aed6f646-0fad-4a30-92c8-6eea330ec3c7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ondro Mihályi]

OK, I understand. But don't get me wrong, not so many people are familiar with OSGi versioning and I think the rest of the world uses Major, minor and patch. I haven't come across using "micro" for fix versions in more than 10 years.

[Edwin Derks]

Same for me Ondro. But don't get me wrong, I'm not against using it "micro". It was just a suggestion ;). if we are going to do "micro" releases in MP, then fine with me. At least then it is decided how to define these kind of releases in the future.

Regards,

Edwin

[Ondro Mihályi]

I want to clarify something about my point of view:

I don't really care about patch vs. micro. But I really care awefully lot about our messaging to the users and the community. Majority of them are used to certain terms and can feel alienated by using obsure terminology and reasoning. MicroProfile strives to be a modern framework, keeping up with the modern standards and terms. So we should be strong to always adopt what's used by the majority, even for little things like naming our fix releases. And even if some of us are more used to other terminology.

--Ondro

[Edwin Derks]

@Ondro: I totally agree

@Kevin: can you make a decision based on the feedback?

[Ondro Mihályi]

Kevin already created a PR to change 'micro' to 'patch' here: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile/pull/48

[Emily Jiang]

Ondro,
Ray explained what is Micro about, which contain purely bug fixes.  From my understanding, Major/Minor/Micro reads better. I had a quick googling. It seems Major/Minor/Patch are combined as well. In this case, either Micro or Patch is fine.

Emily

[Kevin Sutter]

I'm in favor of "patch" release.  Semantic versioning defines major, minor, and patch versions...  https://semver.org/  (Just look at the short Summary, if nothing else.)

I know we're not following semantic versioning to a T, but we have expressed interest in it.  And, after Ondro and Edwin brought up the potential for confusion between a "micro" release and MicroProfile, I think using the term "patch" is more appropriate.

--  Kevin