{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39/events","html_url":"https://github.com/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39","id":130223680,"number":39,"title":"Release cycle plans","user":{"login":"arrdem","id":704767,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/704767?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem","html_url":"https://github.com/arrdem","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":8,"created_at":"2016-02-01T01:14:14Z","updated_at":"2016-03-10T01:47:22Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Right now, `^:deprecated` stuff sticks around indefinitely. It'd be a good idea to put some sort of lifecycle limit on `^:deprecated` vars being removed and stricter guards being enforced. This begs the question of what the release cycle goals are for this project. Since it's my personal gig, I could do daily releases with daily breaking changes and have no problems, but that's pretty user hostile.\r\n\r\nI think this is really a question of exactly how unstable Clojarr is. Is Clojarr supposed to be a drop in replacement for Clojure? That isn't going to happen if only due to ... creative differences.\r\n\r\nI'm just having this thought as of 6594cf97c500e7e6d7a97b094cb3acad940a196b, which is a binary compatibility breaking change."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/comments/194613963","html_url":"https://github.com/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39#issuecomment-194613963","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jaunt-lang/jaunt/issues/39","id":194613963,"user":{"login":"arrdem","id":704767,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/704767?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem","html_url":"https://github.com/arrdem","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/arrdem/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-03-10T01:47:22Z","updated_at":"2016-03-10T01:47:22Z","body":"One concern with reusing `1.0.0` is that a bunch of Clojure has `^:added` metadata which says `1.0`, `1.1`, `1.2` etc. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have a new `1.0` when there are a bunch of references to \"future\" versions kicking around. Maybe that's an argument for going straight for `2.0.0`, or for simply reworking all the `^:added` metadata to make clear which project. I'm honestly not a great fan of that solution, but it would be possible."}}