versioning: Can we bump to v1.0?

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Roel and I decided to call lombok v1.0 only if it seemed reasonable for it to work in all future versions of javac, eclipse, intelliJ, and just about every other tool, but that seems kinda ludicrous, so that's as good as saying that lombok will never hit 1.0.

Later we downgraded simply to: We're truly happy with everything that isn't in experimental, and we fully support intellij.

However, we now know of at least 1 person who would like to use lombok but is prohibited at work only because of lombok's versioning scheme.

What do you think?

I'd like to possibly fix the name of @EqualsAndHashCode and rejigger all current 'exclude' / 'of' towards annotations on the fields themselves (@ToString.Exclude private final String id;), add builder support, and then bump the version number to 1.0.

[eric.giese]

"However, we now know of at least 1 person who would like to use lombok but is prohibited at work only because of lombok's versioning scheme."

That's really weird, considering it is just an arbitary number, albeit a magical one.

Is it possible to discuss about some of the experimental features to become part of that "major" release?
Like, cough, extension methods or value?

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 02:50:31 +0200, Reinier Zwitserloot
<rein...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Roel and I decided to call lombok v1.0 only if it seemed reasonable for
> it
> to work in all future versions of javac, eclipse, intelliJ, and just
> about
> every other tool, but that seems kinda ludicrous, so that's as good as
> saying that lombok will never hit 1.0.
>
> Later we downgraded simply to: We're truly happy with everything that
> isn't
> in experimental, and we fully support intellij.
>
> However, we now know of at least 1 person who would like to use lombok
> but
> is prohibited at work only because of lombok's versioning scheme.
>
>
> What do you think?

I was going to ask you whether it was possible to get to 1.0 soon :-) The
reason is simple: marketing. For me, versioning has no marketing power, as
we talk about engineering. Some customers I've introduced Lombok to
delegate to me the pick of technologies, so after some months of testing
in the past it was easy to prove that Lombok is mature for production use.
But for some new customers that 0.x could be worrying somebody... Since
the product seems to be very stable, it works with no major hassles with
the two major IDEs, experimental stuff is well separated... I'd vote for
going 1.0.

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - fabrizio...@tidalwave.it

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:12:48 +0200, eric.giese <eric...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> That's really weird, considering it is just an arbitary number, albeit a
> magical one.

That's true in engineering language, not necessarily in management
language :-)

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Excellent point. We'll do that.

 --Reinier Zwitserloot

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Walter S <walt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Even version 1.0 would seem like a bad idea, since it makes those who aren't familiar with it assume that this is a first release.  My suggestion would be to simply replace the 0 with 1, (e.g. 1.11.8) then that would communicate that the project has been production quality for some time.

W

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Lombok" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to project-lombo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:48:59 +0200, Reinier Zwitserloot
<rei...@zwitserloot.com> wrote:

> Excellent point. We'll do that.
>
> --Reinier Zwitserloot

Walter, you rock!