Infusion dev numbering proposal

Justin Obara obara.justin at
Wed Jan 18 17:11:11 UTC 2017

Hey Colin,

That’s similar to my original suggestion. I was saying we just have a
global for “fluid” instead of “fluid_version”. I think defining “fluid” as
a global in the shared config should work for most projects using Infusion.
I suppose it could be an issue for projects that don’t, but they could
override that in their own config.


On January 18, 2017 at 11:50:01 AM, Colin Clark (colinbdclark at

Hi all,

Perhaps I'm confused here, but it seems to me that the eslint-config-fluid
module is used by a variety of projects, not just by Infusion. I use it in
some of my personal libraries, and it may also be used in the GPII? If
that's the case, I don't think it needs to make reference the fluid_x_y_z
version global at all; this is an internal aspect of Infusion itself.
Shouldn't it be defined in Infusion's own .eslintrc.json, rather than in
the shared configuration?

If that's the case, we won't have to worry about synchronizing releases
between two separate modules because they will be, well, separate. :)

In other words, this shouldn't exist:

It need only be here:

I think maybe this was your original suggestion, am I right Justin?


On Jan 17, 2017, at 4:28 AM, Tony Atkins <tony at> wrote:

Hi, Justin.

The eslint-config-fluid project itself has versioned releases, so it's
mainly a matter of nicely coupling them to an appropriate infusion release,
and then making it clear how to override the setting in individual
projects.  IMO the latest release of the eslint-config-fluid project should
refer to the latest major infusion release, which is the baseline.  If a
project is only compatible with a later minor/patch release (or fluid 1.5),
that setting can be overridden in the same eslintrc.json file that brings
in the eslint-config-fluid settings, and details on doing so should be in
the README of eslint-config-fluid.

To summarize, I'm proposing we leave the version reflected in the
eslint-config-fluid global settings at fluid_2_0_0 until 3.0 is released,
and document how to override the setting in the project's README.



On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at>

> One more thing to think about in relation to this issue. What should we do
> about our eslint configuration. In eslint-config-fluid right now we have a
> globals declaration for fluid_2_0_0
> <>.
> I’m thinking that this isn’t correct. Maybe we define a global for “fluid”
> and then each project should add a specific version to define as a global
> as needed. Most likely, this will just be in infusion itself.
> Thanks
> Justin
> On January 13, 2017 at 7:36:53 AM, Justin Obara (obara.justin at
> wrote:
> +1 to Colin and Tony’s latest suggestions.
> On January 13, 2017 at 5:29:54 AM, Tony Atkins (tony at
> wrote:
> Hi, Colin:
> Updating master to a future major release version and cutting
> minor/patch/releases manually seems like a good balance to me.  We should
> talk again as a group if we find ourselves cutting minor/patch releases
> often enough that merging becomes a burden.
> Cheers,
> Tony
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at>
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I wonder if we can find a compromise that is sufficiently low-maintenance
>> and informal but still clear to our users and at least within the spirt of
>> semver? Given that we're a small community with very ambitious goals and
>> limited resources, we should in general try to favour processes that are as
>> informal and easy to manage as possible.
>> How about this...?
>> 1. Always keep the version of master set to the next major release
>> number. So, since we've released 2.0.0, master should be set up to publish
>> development releases for 3.0.0. When we eventually cut 3.0.0, it will be
>> incremented to 4.0.0, and so on. The reality is that we know we're going be
>> moving fast and making lots of big changes over the next while as new
>> framework features emerge (such as the new Renderer), so we might as well
>> assume that our next release will be a major one.
>> 2. If we do find the need to cut a smaller 2.0.y or a 2.x.y maintenance
>> release due to major bugs or features, we simply do what we've done in the
>> past and use a release branch, apply or back port any fixes we need into
>> this branch when the demand builds up, and then cut a release as needed.
>> I think this is essentially doing Justin's bullet #3 below, and only
>> that. I don't think it's realistic to try to keep three separate branches
>> in sync all the time. That seems like a recipe for mistakes and more
>> release bureaucracy.
>> And yes, Tony's point about not deleting releases makes a lot of sense.
>> Colin
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at>
>> wrote:
>> I’ve filed a task in JIRA for this work/discussion.
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>> On January 9, 2017 at 11:57:48 AM, Justin Obara (obara.justin at
>> wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>> Warning and using the deprecated command sound like a good approach.
>> Thanks
>> Justin
>> On January 9, 2017 at 11:41:56 AM, Tony Atkins (tony at
>> wrote:
>> Hi, Justin:
>> I will wait for others to way in further on the branching strategy, but I
>> wanted to respond to this point:
>>>    - Potentially clean up the erroneous dev builds by deleting them (
>>>    if we can get away with that ), just the ones post 2.0 that were wrong.
>> Deleting dev releases is a bad practice, and much more trouble than
>> confusing semver ordering.  Builds that rely on the version would break on
>> the next commit or test run, for starters.  Package authors would have to
>> update before they can resume even testing their own work.  This kind of
>> unplanned disruption can cause chaos even if you're just talking about the
>> handful of people who use dev builds within our community.  It's better to
>> warn everyone and move forward than to potentially and confusingly break
>> work in progress.  Even npm themselves strongly discourage unpublishing
>> versions <> in the documentation for
>> the command used to do so.
>> I can see a lot of other strategies here that would accomplish the major
>> goal (avoiding confusion between pre and post release), for example,
>> flagging the pre-2.0 releases as deprecated (which is what npm suggests).
>> Cheers,
>> Tony
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> *In regards to Antranig’s proposal:*
>>> If I’m reading Semver spec point 9 <> correctly,
>>> using 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx would actually be a pre-release of 2.0.0 as
>>> opposed to a pre-release of whatever version comes next. This means that
>>> someone following semver would see these as coming before the 2.0.0 release
>>> instead of after it.
>>> Also, from point 10 <>, it seems we
>>> should have actually put the release as 2.0.0-dev+xxxxxxxxx regardless of
>>> what approach we take. The “+” indicates that the rest is build meta data.
>>> In our case it’s the date and revision hash. I’ve filed a JIRA for this (
>>> )
>>> *In regards to Tony’s proposal:*
>>> We currently have a notion of creating a .x branch to create patch
>>> releases from. We currently have 1.4.x
>>> <>, 1.5.x
>>> <> and
>>> 1.9.x <>. We could
>>> extend this and have a 2.0.x and 2.x.x lines. I think it would be a lot of
>>> work though to be making commits to 3 branches ( 2.0.x 2.x.x and master )
>>> for one change.
>>> *My counter proposal:*
>>>    - Potentially clean up the erroneous dev builds by deleting them (
>>>    if we can get away with that ), just the ones post 2.0 that were wrong.
>>>    - Increment master based on the commits that are merged. That is
>>>    start by changing it to 2.0.1, if a commit is going to have something that
>>>    warrants a minor release, create a 2.0.1 patch release first ( if there
>>>    were changes ). Then bump the release up to 2.1.0, and so on.
>>>    - The tricky part comes with a major change, and for that we’d have
>>>    to bump the version number up to 3.0.0. We could either carry on from here
>>>    as Tony suggested and make a new branch for 2.x work, or we could just
>>>    assume everything else will be part of the next major release.
>>> I wouldn’t say this is the ideal solution, but it might be easiest.
>>> Thanks
>>> Justin
>>> On January 6, 2017 at 7:35:43 AM, Tony Atkins (tony at
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi, All.
>>> I was thinking about this very thing yesterday.  For the near future, I
>>> think Antranig's suggestion is fine.
>>> As our community continues to grow, I would argue that we need to adopt
>>> a strategy that better supports minor and/or patch releases between major
>>> releases.  Although we cannot know whether our next release is major,
>>> minor, or a patch, we do know that there will be another release, and it
>>> would be good for us to discipline ourselves and learn to at least estimate
>>> how big each change we make is.
>>> My initial thought is that we would create a branch for the next
>>> presumed patch and minor release and leave master for the next major
>>> release.  When submitting new work, we would start with whichever branch
>>> most closely matches the scope of the change we are making. In choosing a
>>> starting branch, each of us implicitly has to think about and discuss the
>>> scope of a change with others.
>>> So, for example, we have just release 2.0.0 and have not released any
>>> later versions.  We could create a 2.0.1 branch, and a 2.1.0 branch, each
>>> of which has that version in their package.json.  The version in master
>>> would be updated to 3.0.0.   Bug fixes that are backward compatible would
>>> be submitted against the 2.0.1 branch.  New features that do not break
>>> previous functionality would be submitted against the 2.1.0 branch.
>>> Breaking changes would be submitted against master.
>>> This requires a bit of extra work when cutting a release.  When we
>>> release 2.0.1, we create a 2.0.2 branch.  When we release 2.1.0, we create
>>> a 2.2.0 branch and a 2.1.1 branch.  When we release 3.0.0, we create a
>>> 3.0.1 branch, and a 3.1.0 branch, and update the master version to 4.0.0.
>>> There are existing tools that manage this for you, we could also modify the
>>> fluid-publish script to take care of much of this.
>>> The branch structure would require some extra work in preparing for a
>>> minor or major release, i. e. we would have to make sure to merge upward,
>>> merging changes made to the 2.0.1 branch that we want to preserve in 2.1,
>>> for example.  This in theory could be largely automatic for patch and minor
>>> releases, but would need to be more of a manual process for major releases.
>>> As a simpler alternative, I could see us adopting this incrementally, by
>>> having a 2.1 branch and master, and at least dividing work according to
>>> whether it's appropriate for a minor or major release.  That would
>>> represent less additional work in managing branches, but would at least get
>>> us started in the important practice of drawing a clear line between
>>> breaking and non-breaking changes in future releases.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tony
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Antranig Basman <antranig.basman at colora
>>>> wrote:
>>>> One outcome from our community meeting on 21st Dec 2016 looking forward
>>>> to Infusion beyond the 2.0 release was a proposal that we change our system
>>>> for numbering dev releases of Infusion. Until now we have operated a policy
>>>> that the version number of Infusion in trunk is derived from the *next*
>>>> version of Infusion to be released - for example, our package.json has
>>>> shown a version of 2.0.0 for many months, and our "in-code" namespace
>>>> version has been fluid_2_0_0.
>>>> This also implies that all dev releases made to date via the
>>>> fluid-publish module have been of the form 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx
>>>> The proposal (currently enjoying the status of "silent acceptance" by
>>>> virtue of this still being the condition of trunk after the release) is
>>>> that we leave all these versions just as they are, and flip our policy so
>>>> that the versions shown in trunk will from henceforth always represent the
>>>> *previous* release rather than the upcoming release.
>>>> The reasons for this are primarily driven by semver semantics
>>>> - it would seem impossible to anticipate before the
>>>> fact whether the upcoming release will be a major, minor, or patch version
>>>> - this status could change on the basis of a single commit, and it seems
>>>> too much of a burden, as well as highly noisy, to expect that anyone
>>>> merging a pull request which in effect changes the status of the upcoming
>>>> release to do the work of renumbering all the versions in trunk.
>>>> There had been a further driver in the form of a bug in fluid-publish
>>>> which has since been fixed in the branch currently in review -
>>>> - that the "most
>>>> recently published dev release" would supersede all previous proper
>>>> releases. This is no longer relevant since the bug has been fixed. However,
>>>> adopting this policy will create the oddity that pre-2.0 release and
>>>> post-2.0 (but pre next official) release dev releases of Infusion will be
>>>> somewhat indistinguishable in that they will all have versions of the form
>>>> 2.0.0-dev.xxxxxxxxx - however, this is where our dev release numbering
>>>> policy comes in handy in that we can still refer to the date field to note
>>>> that any of these dated after Dec 6th 2016 (e.g.
>>>> 2.0.0-dev.20161219T170555Z.5778f7e) must be post-2.0 release dev
>>>> releases.
>>>> Any comments/suggestions?
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Antranig
>>>> _______________________________________________________
>>>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>>> see
>>> _______________________________________________________
>>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>> see
>> _______________________________________________________
>> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>> see
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the fluid-work mailing list