rename v2 to v1

[beckermr]

I think I've said this before, but I call them V0 and V1 recipes. The original recipe format doesn't have a schema_version field and the new format has schema_version set to 1. I'm sure a lot of people will get confused if V2 implies a value of 1.

As @schuylermartin45 points out, v2 is really v1. We should rename again in the code.

Cc @wolf @isuruf @nichmor

[wolfv]

"insert table flip emoji" :D

From my POV I don't really care. Happy to call it V1 or V2, it doesn't matter. I do think, given that "meta.yaml" has been around for quite some time, it's fair to call it V1 but again, really don't care much.

[beckermr]

I agree on the tableflip. This GIF is useful

https://media.giphy.com/media/X83Y7r03T6uty/source.gif

I am happy to do the rename myself, but I wanted to discuss first.

[wolfv]

Perfect GIF!

OK, so here is my reasoning for calling it "v2":

• Marketing wise it sounds more like something new, and an improvement.
• It doesn't talk "down" on the previous version. The meta.yaml format, while not properly specified, did last for a long time. It is also relatively stable. It seems a bit unfair to call it "v0" and imply that it was never finished.
• Calling it "v2" also implies more of a "ok, this is breaking" vs. we just stabilized the "v0 -> v1" format. While people that know meta.yaml's well will find the new format very familiar, there are some important changes that will make old recipes not "just work".

But again, if someone has strong feelings, OK with calling it whatever.

[beckermr]

The issue is that the schema_version in the new format is 1, not 2, which is massively confusing to folks, including me, now that I know this and am reading the code.

We voted on and adopted schema_version=1 as a community and so now we have to live with it or do more voting.

[beckermr]

I'll submit a PR.

[jaimergp]

Calling it "v2" also implies more of a "ok, this is breaking" vs. we just stabilized the "v0 -> v1" format.

This is sensible but

The issue is that the schema_version in the new format is 1, not 2, which is massively confusing to folks

this is a dealbreaker. So even if I sympathize with your arguments, Wolf, I think we don't any other choice but using recipe_version={0,1}.

[beckermr]

@wolfv This task is blocked on #2029. Let's get that in first so we can rename all at once.

[wolfv]

I already renamed things in that PR :D

[wolfv]

2029 is currently blocked on a new rattler-build-conda-compat release, so please go ahead and push your rename changes, and I'll adjust the #2029 PR after.

[schuylermartin45]

Sorry for sparking this and not bringing it up in such a public way much sooner. But I do think this will solve a lot of future headaches.

I think as for Wolf's marketing concerns, V0 sounds beta-y and V1 sounds like a fully realized product. I think the gravitas of the shift isn't lost. Besides, we should all be pretty comfortable with counting from 0. 😜

I've been using this nomenclature internally and in Conda Recipe Manager for some time now. I'm just happy I eventually moved from "old recipe format" and "new recipe format"....that would have been so much worse to deal with later.

[jezdez]

We voted on and adopted schema_version=1 as a community and so now we have to live with it or do more voting.

Y'all, make sure the CEP is accurate please.

[jezdez]

As a side-note, I'm a little concerned we have standard conversations outside the cep repo, let's open issues about existing and voted on CEPs there next time?

[jezdez]

I opened conda/ceps#89

[beckermr]

Agreed @jezdez. CEP-14 clearly says what the version is here: https://github.com/conda/ceps/blob/main/cep-14.md#schema-version. The convo above was ensuring that we adopt the same language.