23 May
2012
23 May
'12
10:54 a.m.
Hi,
this proposal is very similar to what Ubuntu does with LTS releases :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS . It's part of the work done by the community,
not by the company (Canonical).
The "test our latest features" use case is all nice and good, but it's not
the actual use case of most XWiki users. Their use case is "we need people
to work together using a stable, tested, reliable piece of software".
That's the use case that is strengthened by releases that are supported for
a longer term.
This is especially true given that XWiki is still quite tough to upgrade as
soon as you've made some customizations to it. Thus I reiterate my strong
support for Sergiu's proposal to extend the support lifetime of
end-of-cycle releases.
Thanks,
Guillaume
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I also think we should encourage the community to
always use and test out
the latest version.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <
calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
On 05/22/2012 04:39 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
one
On May 21, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> Given that each development cycle usually starts with bigger changes
and ends
with a couple of stabilization releases, IMHO it makes sense to
keep the last branch of a cycle maintained for a while longer.
>>
>> Our current strategy is to only support two branches at a time, the being developed, and the one before it. This
means that as soon as [N].0
is
released, [N-1].5.x is dropped. However, the
[N-1].5.x branch is much
more
stable and polished than the fresh new start of
the cycle, so more people
would be interested in using that stable version, especially in
enterprise
situations. Thus, I propose to amend our support
rule to keep the
end-of-cycle branch active for, let's say, 6 months. Still, this means
only
that we backport major or critical issues, which
would improve the
stability of that branch, without any new features.
back.
I don't like it because the point of the 2 branches only was twofold:
1) Force users to move to the newer version and thus help us test it.
Users get
XWiki for free and it's good that they contribute something Testing is contributing back. Your proposal
basically means that you're
telling users: "Don't use the new N.0 release because it's not ultra
stable
yet, instead, stay on N-1.5.x and wait 6 months.
With this strategy we'll
have less people testing N.x and 6 months down the road N+1.x will be
less
tested.
think
2) It's more work. We already have a hard time maintaining N.x. For
example
right now we have an important bug that was fixed in 4.0.1 and
we're not even releasing 4.0.1 when we should. Also we're fixing bugs on
4.1.x that we're not backporting to 4.0.
Also note that this means less work done on the N.x and N+1.x and our
dev team is
already very small (about 5-6 active committers)…
I think I'd prefer a slightly different strategy:
* As a team we keep the same rule as now, i.e. only 2 branches (dev
branch +
stable)
* If a given committer wants to maintain another
branch himself a bit
more, he can do it but he should state it on a case by case
basis so that
others don't delete it and then it's up to him to backport stuff he wants
to the branch and close it when it's no longer needed.
I agree, I'm not opposed to old versions being supported but I don't it's the community's job.
I wouldn't expect Linus Torvolds to support 2.4.x, but RedHat can.
Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs