Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

When there would be a version 1.0? #4034

Closed
9 tasks done
Gr3Kidd3r opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed
9 tasks done

When there would be a version 1.0? #4034

Gr3Kidd3r opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
question Question or problem question-migrate

Comments

@Gr3Kidd3r
Copy link

First Check

  • I added a very descriptive title to this issue.
  • I used the GitHub search to find a similar issue and didn't find it.
  • I searched the FastAPI documentation, with the integrated search.
  • I already searched in Google "How to X in FastAPI" and didn't find any information.
  • I already read and followed all the tutorial in the docs and didn't find an answer.
  • I already checked if it is not related to FastAPI but to Pydantic.
  • I already checked if it is not related to FastAPI but to Swagger UI.
  • I already checked if it is not related to FastAPI but to ReDoc.

Commit to Help

  • I commit to help with one of those options 👆

Example Code

There's no code to be included.

Description

I read in the docs that at the moment FastAPI is production ready and is used by big tech companies, but I'm asking when there will be a release for version 1.0? And if there is one, what is to be expected from that version as I think FastAPI is using semantic versioning.

Operating System

Linux

Operating System Details

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS

FastAPI Version

0.70.0

Python Version

3.7.11

Additional Context

No response

@Gr3Kidd3r Gr3Kidd3r added the question Question or problem label Oct 10, 2021
@Kludex
Copy link
Sponsor Collaborator

Kludex commented Oct 10, 2021

Based on my talks with @tiangolo, this is the checklist:

  • API Reference (and some internal cleaning for it)
  • Starlette stable release (1.0)
  • Uvicorn stable release (1.0)

It's likely that I forgot about some other box, or that I'm not aware. But the core of our conversation is that the "underneath packages should be stable".

As for the Starlette 1.0 release, we are missing:

  • HTTP/2 support
  • HTTPX based TestClient

You can check more about it on encode/starlette#51.

As for Uvicorn 1.0 release, we are missing more things. Check more about it on https://github.com/encode/uvicorn/milestone/1.

PRs are more than welcome on Starlette and Uvicorn. :)

NOTE: This is not an official statement.

@Gr3Kidd3r
Copy link
Author

@Kludex Thanks for your response.

@ghandic
Copy link
Contributor

ghandic commented Oct 11, 2021

How much of the openapi specification would we also need to tick off? These could have breaking changes (thinking deepObject query encoding) and a few other extra features

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 28, 2023
@tiangolo tiangolo converted this issue into discussion #8651 Feb 28, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
question Question or problem question-migrate
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants