[zeromq-dev] State of libzmq versioning

Thu Feb 18 10:12:36 CET 2016

libzmq versioning is unchanged for years. There's a 4.1 stable fork
that we apply fixes to, and will make one or two more releases of.
There's 4.2 arriving on master, with a mix of stable API and new draft
API. One thing we will do in 4.2 is clearly mark the draft API as
such, and perhaps not build it by default, from source packages. We're
using the same approach in CZMQ and other projects now.

The goal with this is to allow shipment of the current master without
having 100% stability on the API. There are things we know we'll need
to refine and improve.

-Pieter

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Mario Steinhoff
<steinhoff.mario at gmail.com> wrote:
> So my question about the state of zmq versioning drifted in some kind
> of we-need-more-automation-for-the-docs initiative. Awesome :)
>
> I'd love to help with it but I am already busy with the jzmq stuff for now.
>
> But the first question is still unanswered:
>
>> With all this, whats the current status on libzmq versioning?
>
> Or does no answer mean that all my assumptions were correct?
>
> 2016-02-17 18:48 GMT+01:00 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>:
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Mario Steinhoff
> https://github.com/msteinhoff
> https://twitter.com/msteinhofff
> T: +49 173 7265158
> In der Gelpe 79
> 42349 Wuppertal
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev