91 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "a97003d7-c86d-41a3-8655-ca35c6912d42"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:14+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "When should you tag 1.0?"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-04-19T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:14+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/04\/19\/when-should-you-tag-1-0",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>Something I've seen, both with contributed Drupal modules and other open-source projects, over the past few years is they spend a lot of time in the 0.x versions or releasing alpha and beta versions rather than releasing a 1.0 or stable version.<\/p>\n\n<p>I presume it's a concern around backward compatibility and maintaining that once a stable version is released.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, if you want people to use your module or upgrade it to the latest version, that's much easier to do once there's a stable version.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some organisations prohibit using alpha or unstable versions of projects so, if there isn't a stable version, they wouldn't be able to use it.<\/p>\n\n<p>Personally, if I'm using one of my open-source modules, plugins or libraries in production, there should be a stable 1.0 version tagged.<\/p>\n\n<p>Once it's in production, I'm already making an implied commitment that it's going to be stable and I won't break everything in the next release, so why not make that explicit and tag a stable release?<\/p>\n\n<p>Version numbers are free and nothing is stopping you from deprecating code and releasing a new major version with breaking changes in the future, so go ahead and tag that stable version.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>Something I've seen, both with contributed Drupal modules and other open-source projects, over the past few years is they spend a lot of time in the 0.x versions or releasing alpha and beta versions rather than releasing a 1.0 or stable version.<\/p>\n\n<p>I presume it's a concern around backward compatibility and maintaining that once a stable version is released.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, if you want people to use your module or upgrade it to the latest version, that's much easier to do once there's a stable version.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some organisations prohibit using alpha or unstable versions of projects so, if there isn't a stable version, they wouldn't be able to use it.<\/p>\n\n<p>Personally, if I'm using one of my open-source modules, plugins or libraries in production, there should be a stable 1.0 version tagged.<\/p>\n\n<p>Once it's in production, I'm already making an implied commitment that it's going to be stable and I won't break everything in the next release, so why not make that explicit and tag a stable release?<\/p>\n\n<p>Version numbers are free and nothing is stopping you from deprecating code and releasing a new major version with breaking changes in the future, so go ahead and tag that stable version.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |