[zeromq-dev] State of libzmq versioning
Pieter Hintjens
ph at imatix.com
Wed Feb 17 18:48:19 CET 2016
We could use this, yes.
Volunteers? :)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Michel Pelletier
<pelletier.michel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the docs is fantastic, I used it for pyczmq and it works great. Also
> it's not just software or a hosting service, the author (a local here in my
> neck of the woods) hosts "write the docs" conferences focusing on writing
> and producing good documentation:
>
> http://www.writethedocs.org/
>
> All together it's a powerful documentation ecosystem.
>
> -Michel
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have generators of various kinds: gitdown, mkman, which zproject
>> uses/plugs into. The commonality is text files that turn into man
>> pages and then various other formats that can be sent anywhere. I
>> don't think we need to *standardise* so much as decide on a format, a
>> host, and a safe way to upload after successful CI builds. We can have
>> many of these.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Arnaud Loonstra <arnaud at sphaero.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Perhaps we can standardise on this? Perhaps even include some
>> > generators for it in zproject?
>> > I was starting to use Sphinx for Pyre as well. Now using it for
>> > multiple projects. I'm not familiar with how it works with other
>> > languages but for Python it's great.
>> >
>> > On 2016-02-17 10:39, Doron Somech wrote:
>> >> Take a look at readthedocs.org [9], it is what NetMQ is using and
>> >> completely automated. You manage the docs in the git repository.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com
>> >> [10]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hmm, the tools we use to build the online docs are old and creaky,
>> >>> and
>> >>> date from long before we had neat CI automation. Meaning, we update
>> >>> the api site manually.
>> >>>
>> >>> Im doing that now. I think its time we look at pushing this
>> >>> directly
>> >>> to github pages, from Travis.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mario Steinhoff
>> >>> <steinhoff.mario at gmail.com [1]> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi everyone,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am a bit confused about the available information on libzmq
>> >>> versions.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The page at api.zeromq.org [2] says that we have:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - 4.2 (master)
>> >>> > - 4.1 (rc)
>> >>> > - 4.0 (stable)
>> >>> > - 3.2 (stable)
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On the download page 4.0 is missing:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - a version-less master which "should be stable almost all the
>> >>> time" (4.2?)
>> >>> > - 4.1.4 ("stable")
>> >>> > - 3.2.5 ("legacy stable")
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In libzmq, the NEWS file on master seems to be outdated (last
>> >>> update
>> >>> > in 2014). The doc folder in libzmq seems to be maintained but not
>> >>> in
>> >>> > sync with api.zeromq.org [3] (I checked today and some changes
>> >>> from the
>> >>> > last commit in that folder are not present on the site).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > There are also maintained stabilization forks as per C4.1 for
>> >>> libzmq,
>> >>> > e.g. zeromq4-x (which contains 4.0?), 4-1, and 3-x (which
>> >>> contains
>> >>> > 3.2?).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And then there is this article: http://hintjens.com/blog:85 [4]
>> >>> which
>> >>> > suggests in a very compelling way that software versions suck and
>> >>> to
>> >>> > ditch them altogether (yes I agree) but I cant find those SBOMs
>> >>> > anywhere so I assume that experiment did not went very far.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > With all this, whats the current status on libzmq versioning?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Am I understanding right that:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - The libzmq repository is always the latest and greatest, and
>> >>> 4.2
>> >>> > looks like the last version Ill ever need™, its always stable
>> >>> and
>> >>> > follows the raw-draft-stable-deprecated process so its also
>> >>> always
>> >>> > backwards compatible.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - Stable releases are maintained for 3.2, 4.0, and 4.1 and
>> >>> sometimes
>> >>> > bugfixes get backported from 4.2.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > - Release notes are only maintained for stable releases?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Is the outdated API site a bug or a feature? I am currently using
>> >>> the
>> >>> > text files in doc/ but I like to look at the fancy ZMQ logo when
>> >>> I
>> >>> > browse the API reference :-)
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cheers
>> >>> > Mario
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org [5]
>> >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [6]
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org [7]
>> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev [8]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Links:
>> >> ------
>> >> [1] mailto:steinhoff.mario at gmail.com
>> >> [2] http://api.zeromq.org
>> >> [3] http://api.zeromq.org
>> >> [4] http://hintjens.com/blog:85
>> >> [5] mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> [6] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> [7] mailto:zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> [8] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> [9] http://readthedocs.org
>> >> [10] mailto:ph at imatix.com
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
More information about the zeromq-dev
mailing list