Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release 1.0 #185

Closed
mostlyobvious opened this issue Jan 27, 2018 · 8 comments
Closed

Release 1.0 #185

mostlyobvious opened this issue Jan 27, 2018 · 8 comments

Comments

@mostlyobvious
Copy link
Member

There has to be finally a release after which one could expect stability in terms of public API.

Not long ago we've changed database schema heavily (0.19.0) to fix potential concurrency-related issues. That was a major blocker, at least from my perspective. So are we ready now? What else seems crucial before we freeze public API and behavior?

I'd suggest reviewing #184 and #153 as both touch public API.

@mostlyobvious
Copy link
Member Author

Is it the moment to remove deprecations?
Is it the moment to remove LegacyEventRepository?

@paneq
Copy link
Member

paneq commented Feb 8, 2018

I'd suggest reviewing #184 and #153 as both touch public API.

👍 Agree, exactly that!

@andrzejkrzywda
Copy link
Contributor

While I agree that both #184 and #153 would be nice to have improved - I'd opt for releasing 1.0 without blocking on them.

We have a nice, working system, the API is not perfect (and never will be for everybody) but we support many use cases (aggregates, linking to many streams, using read models, process managers). There are no known bugs. It's all what I'd expect from having RES 1.0.

My suggestion - let's release 1.0 with what we have now and include #184 and #153 as main improvements for 2.0.

Maybe we could celebrate releasing 1.0 during wroc_love.rb? :)

@mpraglowski
Copy link
Member

I would also suggest #126 as part of 1.0 release

@mpraglowski mpraglowski added this to the 1.0.0 milestone Jul 31, 2018
@mostlyobvious
Copy link
Member Author

Closing as we've scoped that already https://github.com/RailsEventStore/rails_event_store/milestone/3 and I doubt there's much more to discuss on this topic.

@joelvh
Copy link
Contributor

joelvh commented Dec 9, 2018

@pawelpacana I'd like to get #463 or #476 completed for 1.0 so ROM has feature parity with AR. I didn't get any feedback on which approach is preferred. Could you guys comment on that? Thanks!

@mostlyobvious
Copy link
Member Author

@joelvh That'd be cool, thanks for reminding!

I haven't looked into update_messages yet but it's on my list. I'll look into #463 and #476 then.

@joelvh
Copy link
Contributor

joelvh commented Dec 9, 2018

@pawelpacana ok, great. Reviewing what was proposed there, I'm going to go with the "upsert" version in #476. Might need some help with mutations, but getting things sync'd up with master right now.

Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants