> On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Jörg.
> 
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 09:43:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>> 
>> Gilles wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:50:00 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Gilles
>>>> <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> According to JIRA, among 180 issues currently targeted for the
>>>>>>> next major release (v4.0), 139 have been resolved (75 of which
>>>>>>> were not in v3.6.1).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ​Huh, it's above of 75% completion :)​
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Everybody is welcome to review the "open" issues and comment
>>>>> about them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> ​I guess someone need to prioritize them​ according to they
>>>> importance for
>>>> release.
>>> 
>>> Importance is relative... :-}
>>> 
>>> IMO, it is important to not release unsupported code.
>> 
>> Unit test *are* kind of support.
> 
> Unit tests are not what I mean by "support".  They only increase the
> probability that the code behaves as expected. [And sometimes they do
> not because they can be buggy too, as I discovered when refactoring
> the "random" package.]

Now that is a funny argument.  If you can write a proper unit test for the code 
typically you understand what the code is doing and could fix it if needed. 

> 
> But anyways, my reservations have nothing to do with the functionality
> of released code: users who are satisfied with the service provided by
> v3.6.1 (or any of the previous versions of CM) have no reason to upgrade
> to 4.0.  [By upgrading, all they get is the obligation to change the
> "import" statements.]
> 
> And we have no reason to release a v4.0 of a code that
> 1. has not changed
> 2. is not supported

What you seem to be proposing is tossing code that “isn’t supported” even if it 
works just fine. I don’t understand why you would want to do that.  

What I am seeing here is a bunch of people coming on board who seem to really 
want to help and get involved. Before doing radical things like dumping a large 
portion of the code base please take the time to see how things play out.

Ralph



Reply via email to