Version 1.0.0 Release and Maintenance Discussion

[kengoldfarb]

Version 1.0.0 Release Discussion

@rtgibbons I'm willing to help with maintenance. Here are some initial thoughts.

I propose...

Versioning Going Forward

• We begin following semantic versioning http://semver.org/
• In that spirit, the next release is version 1.0.0
• Version 1.0.0 will integrate all (good) PRs that are currently pending and other TBD features

1.0.0 Feature/Fix list

• Better test suite. Fill in gaps of missing tests.
• Add "contextRoot" option Add "contextRoot" option #17
• Add support for custom Swig filters Add support for custom Swig filters. #24
• Customize grunt-swig with additional tags Customize grunt-swig with additional tags. #26
• Ability to change file extension, output directly to dest directory Add support for flat trees. #28, Allow file extensions other than .swig #30, Add options to change the generated file extension and prevent the expansion of subpaths for dest #32
• Use options in config as grunt intended Use options in config as grunt intended #34
• Improve test suite - This needs to be far more concise
• Disable cache not working Disable Cache not working #36
• WHAT ELSE?!?

Workflow

• Create a 1.0.0 branch https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/tree/v1.0.0
• Integrate all PRs and any new features into 1.0.0 branch
• Release a beta version RC to npm: 1.0.0-rc1
• Test/Verify
• Fix bugs, etc.
• Repeat npm beta release, incrementing 'rc' number 1.0.0-rc2 until we agree we have a stable and tested codebase
• Merge to master branch and release version 1.0.0 to npm

@rtgibbons @nickpack @zdwolfe @MrGamer - Thoughts?

[colthreepv]

I really appreciate your initative, as i think this project is really valid to generate small static sites!
Will try and help in the integration of features, at the moment I can't think of anything else of general usefulness... bravo!

[nickpack]

I may have some time to work on this next week, one thing missing from the lists above is the test suite - this is something that has always needed improvement. We shouldnt really be adding features without a decent test suite to back them up.

[nickpack]

Might I suggest along with semver that we use gitflow as this makes managing PRs, releases and hotfixes a lot easier.

[zdwolfe]

I agree with Nick. Version 1.0.0 should include no more new features, but
have a test suite for major features that work today. Unless we have a high
degree of certainty that we aren't making breaking API changes, there's no
point following semver.

Zach
On Aug 27, 2014 1:52 AM, "Nick Pack" [email protected] wrote:

Might I suggest along with semver that we use gitflow as this makes
managing PRs, releases and hotfixes a lot easier.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment).

[kengoldfarb]

I agree that a more robust test suite is a great idea. And naturally new features should definitely include tests.

I disagree about not adding new features though. I think v1.0 should include new features and have tests for those new features.

@zdwolfe - I was expecting that we WOULD be making breaking api changes which is why I'm suggesting we change the major version number. That way anyone using the existing 0.2 version would be able to continue using the old version.

Then going forward after v1.0, which includes the better test suite, we should be able to follow semver.

@nickpack - completely agree with following gitflow methodology

[kengoldfarb]

@nickpack - updated the 1.0 feature list to include better testsuite

[nickpack]

@zdwolfe @kengoldfarb I wasnt saying don't release new features, was just stating that the test suite should be in line with it.

[kengoldfarb]

@nickpack @zdwolfe @MrGamer @rtgibbons -
I just added a branch with a big refactoring of stuff here: https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/tree/proposed-updates-ken

Check it out and let me know what you think. There's a test project using the new config here for reference: https://github.com/kengoldfarb/grunt-swig-test

Also the readme is updated with the new options.

It's still missing some stuff like a good test suite but most everything else from the list above should be addressed.

[zdwolfe]

Ken,

Do you think you could submit it as a pull request so it's easier to see
the diff? Even if it's a substantial difference, I find PRs are a good
venue for seeing changes.

Thanks,
Zach

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Ken Goldfarb [email protected]
wrote:

@nickpack https://github.com/nickpack @zdwolfe
https://github.com/zdwolfe @MrGamer https://github.com/mrgamer
@rtgibbons https://github.com/rtgibbons -
I just added a branch with a big refactoring of stuff here:
https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/tree/proposed-updates-ken

Check it out and let me know what you think. There's a test project using
the new config here for reference:
https://github.com/kengoldfarb/grunt-swig-test

Also the readme is updated with the new options.

It's still missing some stuff like a good test suite but most everything
else from the list above should be addressed.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment).

[kengoldfarb]

Pretty close to a full rewrite. PR is here: https://github.com/rtgibbons/grunt-swig/pull/37/files