Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release 2.0 stable #526

Closed
felixge opened this issue Jun 28, 2013 · 16 comments
Closed

Release 2.0 stable #526

felixge opened this issue Jun 28, 2013 · 16 comments

Comments

@felixge
Copy link
Collaborator

felixge commented Jun 28, 2013

Hi guys,

do you guys have any objections against cutting a 2.0 stable release at some point? Do we have some APIs that we need decisions on?

It would be really nice if npm install mysql would start doing the right thing : ).

cc @dresende @ifsnow @kai-koch

@marcuswestin
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Sent from Mailbox for iPad

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Felix Geisendörfer
notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi guys,
do you guys have any objections against cutting a 2.0 stable release at some point? Do we have some APIs that we need decisions on?
It would be really nice if npm install mysql would start doing the right thing : ).

cc @dresende @ifsnow @kai-koch

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#526

@dnalborczyk
Copy link

Hey Felix,

a final version would be pretty nice to have - you could also spin up (some) betas prior.

It would be really nice though to have 'prepared statements' working during the alpha/beta phase; in case the API has to change ...

just my 2 cents :)
Daniel

PS: Is there already a branch you/or somebody started working on? Maybe I can help ...

@felixge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

felixge commented Jun 28, 2013

It would be really nice though to have 'prepared statements' working during the alpha/beta phase; in case the API has to change ...

Well, the funding status of this is a bit unclear again, so I don't know when / if I'll have time to work on it. We can always release 3.0 if we have to break the API for prepared statements (I dont' think we'll have to, they'll be a simple addition).

Anyway, I did get the very basics going over here: https://github.com/felixge/node-mysql/tree/prepare - if somebody wants to pick it up - go for it. It's mainly all the different types that need implementing.

@ifsnow
Copy link
Contributor

ifsnow commented Jun 28, 2013

I think that it would be good if #505 was included.
But, The more reviews are necessary.

I will check more. After that, try to merge.

There are no objections about 2.0 stable release.

@tellnes
Copy link
Collaborator

tellnes commented Jun 29, 2013

I also think there should be a stable 2.0 soon, but some issues should be fixed first. Maybe we should create a milestone?

@kai-koch
Copy link
Collaborator

👍

@dresende
Copy link
Collaborator

dresende commented Jul 1, 2013

I agree with @tellnes , a milestone would be nice. Maybe we could make a sprint and try to close bugs on Poll.

@tellnes
Copy link
Collaborator

tellnes commented Jul 1, 2013

Created a milestone and added a few issues to it.

@felixge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

felixge commented Jul 2, 2013

@tellnes <3 thanks.

Everybody else: Should we add anything else to this list?

@tellnes
Copy link
Collaborator

tellnes commented Jul 2, 2013

@felixge and everybody else: Probably yes. I just added a few issues at the top of the issue tracker.

@dresende
Copy link
Collaborator

dresende commented Jul 2, 2013

Looks good for now :)

@tomasikp
Copy link
Contributor

please take a look at #539. There is a potential breaking change proposed which would be good to be included prior to cutting a stable release.

@sidorares sidorares mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2014
@sidorares
Copy link
Member

Just found this discussion while searching for pool idle disconnect options ( #505 ). I don't think it fits 2.0 release (it adds new api) but I really want to see it in 2.1

@dresende
Copy link
Collaborator

Let's open a new issue when needed to discuss 2.1. 2.0 is done :)

@sidorares
Copy link
Member

@dresende I'm planning to release more often if you don't mind, no need to have discussion for releases. On the other hand, let's have a rule of at least two 👍 on non-trivial pull request before merging

@dresende
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, no need for a discussion for every release. I was just wanted to close the issue. Any other issues should be addressed in new ones :) I agree with at least 2 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants