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

docs: guidelines for public interface management #2108

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aucampia
Copy link
Member

@aucampia aucampia commented Sep 3, 2022

Summary of changes

These guidelines sets out some approaches for managing our public
interface, it presents options for integrating code related to breaking
changes into the main branch while still allowing control as to when
those changes are released to users.

Happy for any suggestions, there may be better options or problems with
these options that I'm overlooking.

Checklist

  • Checked that there aren't other open pull requests for
    the same change.
  • Checked that all tests and type checking passes.
  • Considered granting push permissions to the PR branch,
    so maintainers can fix minor issues and keep your PR up to date.

@aucampia aucampia changed the title docs: Add guidelines for public interface management docs: guidelines for public interface management Sep 3, 2022
These guidelines sets out some approaches for managing our public
interface, it presents options for integrating code related to breaking
changes into the main branch while still allowing control as to when
those changes are released to users.

Happy for any suggestions, there may be better options or problems with
these options that I'm overlooking.
@aucampia aucampia force-pushed the iwana-20220826T2154-adr_interfaces branch from b6fecd7 to a474638 Compare September 3, 2022 14:48
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.002%) to 90.635% when pulling a474638 on aucampia:iwana-20220826T2154-adr_interfaces into a563a20 on RDFLib:master.

@aucampia aucampia marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2022 15:07
@aucampia aucampia requested a review from a team September 3, 2022 15:07
Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keen to try it out

@aucampia
Copy link
Member Author

aucampia commented Sep 16, 2022

A colleague of mine (@nikitabarskov) pointed out to me today that google does do what I'm suggesting here [ref], so there is some precedent for this approach. Google has for example google.cloud.bigquery and google.cloud.bigquery_v2 - the one difference is that they use bigquery_v2 instead of bigquery.v2, which is what my guideline amounts to.

I would have gone for rdflib_v7 though, but for the issues it causes with sphinx, as sphinx does not like having multiple top level modules the way we use it. I will have another look at sphinx to see if I can't maybe make it work like that, another option is to use rdflib.rdflib_v7, but I'm not sure that is better than rdflib.v7.

@aucampia
Copy link
Member Author

More precedent/prior art that I found which:

https://github.com/cloudevents/sdk-python/blob/6648eb52aac2c3ec643b9df62a53d5f57b3ef033/cloudevents/sdk/event/v1.py

This is arguably even more similar to what I'm proposing here.

@aucampia aucampia requested a review from edmondchuc March 20, 2023 19:14
@aucampia
Copy link
Member Author

Just to re-emphasize why this matters:

Every time we break our interface we push a significant cost onto our users, the more it costs them to use RDFLib, the less they like it. There are many ways in which we can batch breaking changes and release it in a coordinated fashion without releasing a new major version every release, and we really should be doing that. Rushing interface changes out to users makes our lives harder and is not that helpful to them either.

@aucampia
Copy link
Member Author

I'm going to clean this up a bit this week, the essence of it will stay the same but I will improve the writing and clarity slightly.

If there is no further feedback, I will merge it next weekend.

Copy link

@ghost ghost left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@aucampia
Copy link
Member Author

As discussed in #2395 I think this is too ambitious, I will make it a draft and likely close it soon.

@aucampia aucampia marked this pull request as draft May 22, 2023 17:37
@aucampia aucampia added the marked for closing The issue or PR will be closed soon if no further feedback is provided. label May 22, 2023
aucampia added a commit to aucampia/rdflib that referenced this pull request May 22, 2023
Add guidelines on how breaking changes should be approached.

The guidelines take a very pragmatic approach with known downsides, but this
seems like the best compromise given the current situation.

For prior discussion on this point see:
- RDFLib#2395
- RDFLib#2108
- RDFLib#1841
aucampia added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2023
Add guidelines on how breaking changes should be approached.

The guidelines take a very pragmatic approach with known downsides, but this
seems like the best compromise given the current situation.

For prior discussion on this point see:
- #2395
- #2108
- #1841
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
marked for closing The issue or PR will be closed soon if no further feedback is provided.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants