Version 1.0 Hit List

[sdwilsh]

This exists to track the work we need to do in order to set the version to 1.0

• Update Development Status :: 4 - Beta classifier in setup.cfg
• Fix import paths for gem for things that are not gem-dependent
• Consider changing the default value for BidirectionalProtocol's send_packet_delay parameter to False after gaining some experience with how it behaves in the wild
• Fix typo in README.md: "This library is a collection of protcols" should read "protocols"

[sdwilsh]

@jkeljo, I think there was a thing or two you mentioned that I'm drawing a blank on here as well (and I know we talked about it, but I also can't find that conversation).

[jkeljo]

Yeah, added. Convo was in #127

[jkeljo]

Ok so with #205 landed we need to either decide that it's OK for that small breaking change to happen in 0.13, or do these things and cut 1.0. Thoughts?

If you think we should go for 1.0 now, do you have any thoughts on the right code organization? At a quick glance I see four categories of code in siobrultech_protocols.gem today:
1 - low-level stuff that is used by both GEM and ECM code, e.g. fields.py, the Packet and PacketFormat classes
2 & 3 - GEM or ECM-specific stuff, like the packet format definitions in packets.py or the API configurations in api.py; all the stuff in const.py looks GEM-specific
4 - the high-level interface to the library, which can handle both GEM and ECM (protocol.py, most of api.py

One way to do this might be:

• Everything in 1 & 4 moves to siobrultech_protocols
• 2 moves to siobrultech_protocols/gem.py
• 3 moves to siobrultech_protocols/ecm.py

wdyt?

[jkeljo]

I suppose another question is do we want to keep the siobrultech_protocols base package, or should we move both this and greeneye_monitor to using namespace packages and root them at a common base like brultech? That might be too much bikeshedding.

[sdwilsh]

Ok so with #205 landed we need to either decide that it's OK for that small breaking change to happen in 0.13, or do these things and cut 1.0. Thoughts?

Technically, we're pre-1.0, so I think breaking changes are okay. I think you and I are the only ones using this right now, anyway!

One way to do this might be:

Everything in 1 & 4 moves to siobrultech_protocols
2 moves to siobrultech_protocols/gem.py
3 moves to siobrultech_protocols/ecm.py

wdyt?

This is what I had in mind as well!

I suppose another question is do we want to keep the siobrultech_protocols base package, or should we move both this and greeneye_monitor to using namespace packages and root them at a common base like brultech? That might be too much bikeshedding.

Oh interesting. I think it might be nice for us to merge all this, but we could also do that post 1.0. It might even be nice to consolidate some repositories so we can share some common things as well.

[jkeljo]

Ok, I'll cut 0.13 so I can get that bugfix into HACS, and we can work on the code organization for 1.0.