1.0 Release about automerge-repo HOT 10 CLOSED

For anyone following along PVH's comments above are a list of things we talked about synchronously as being important for a release. I've created issues for most of them and added them to the tracking issue. With the exception of

• mergeText
• change/patch confusiong
• BroadcastChannel breaks ephemeral data

We decided that since these can all be fixed in a backwards compatible manner and are low enough priority that we shouldn't block a release on them.

from automerge-repo.

One question is whether we should block this release on #87 . I think @acurrieclark presents a good argument in that issue that we should redesign our message types. We already have interoperable implementations in various states in Rust, Swift, and Kotlin. It would be nice if we could standardise our wire protocol before even more implementations pop up.

On the other hand, I want to get this release out fairly soon and this might be the kind of design task that expands surprisigngly. Maybe we should just add a version negotiation step so that we can solve this later? The tradeoff obviously being that then we might end up supporting the current protocol as a legacy protocol for a while? @pvh @HerbCaudill thoughts?

from automerge-repo.

So, sorry it took a bit to get back to you. I think this list is roughly correct. I would like to land @neftaly 's work on useAwareness and useBootstrap in here as well, but agree we should not block. I wanted to deal with 87 pre-1.0 but I feel at this point that it's not far enough along to commit to and just barely shy of being worth blocking a release (mostly due to uncertainty about what to do).

from automerge-repo.

#45 is blocked by #112

@pvh has taken over #102 and I think is also blocked by #112

from automerge-repo.

#102 and #112 are now landed on main -- happy to try and get #45 landed too.

from automerge-repo.

Since @neftaly asked, the goal is to finish this list for a release in two weeks. That means ideally clearing the list out this week and then spending the following week fixing bugs / polishing / etc.

from automerge-repo.

Okay -- there are PRs up for all of these now in one form or another except #116. @alexjg would love your review of the small stuff; feel free to land where you're confident. I'm going to call it a night here.

from automerge-repo.

@alexjg Added a few issues for consideration for v1 following conversations with @pvh

from automerge-repo.

I suggest fixing #129 for 1.0

from automerge-repo.

@alexjg i think we could probably close this out?

from automerge-repo.