13.07 is just a release branch for now, that we are stabilizing since July 2013 (when we branched it from trunk); no release yet was made... when we will release 13.07.01 that will be the first stable release.
Jacopo On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Ron Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess that I am still a little confused about the release policy. > > If 13.07 was frozen in July 2013 with all of the functionality defined, what > was the date that it was "released" with the database fixed and the code > "done" except for bug fixes (stable release?)? > > I am not sure that as a system admin, I would make the jump from someone > putting a demo and me putting it into production. > > Was there a date that the development team said that it was now "recommended" > for production use even though there were known bugs and a 13.07.01 release > was scheduled in the future. > How can one know which 13.07 pre-release one has? > > Was this made available as a 13.07.00 or as a 13.07.01-SNAPSHOT? > > Ron > > On 19/08/2014 4:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >> Le 19/08/2014 18:27, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>> On 19/08/2014 10:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> Inline... >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 8/19/2014 3:45 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> Java 6 is already 8 years old. Java 7 is 3 years old. Java 8 is pretty >>>>> new but worth considering if it is not a significant different from the >>>>> upgrade to Java 7. >>>>> >>>>> How much work was involved in the switch from 6 to 7. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unit tests fail in Java 7. They had to be modified. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The difference between versions of Log4j would not seem to be a big >>>>> advantage or a big problem. I did this on one of our projects and it was >>>>> pretty painless. I also switched from properties to xml and that was a 1 >>>>> hour project for my simple system. >>>>> >>>>> From a marketing/project adoption point of view, a product based on an >>>>> 8 year old version of Java is a lot less attractive that one running on >>>>> the latest version. >>>>> It shows that the project team is on top of current technology and that >>>>> the project is active. >>>>> I don't think that people would care much about the version of log4j >>>>> when deciding whether to consider OfBiz. >>>> >>>> >>>> True, that shouldn't affect those considering OFBiz. But sys admins >>>> configure tools to analyze OFBiz logs, and the new format could break >>>> those tools. >>>> Keep in mind there may be hundreds of production deployments running on >>>> the R13 branch. >>>> >>> I thought that we are talking about the .01 release of 13.07. >>> Putting milestones or development trunks into production does entail some >>> risk. >>> I am surprised that there are that many different system integrators or >>> end-users that would put a development branch into production. >>> End-users are usually bound by corporate policies about using official >>> releases. >> >> Remember that the R13.07 branch has been freezed since , er, 13/07. So those >> people don't take much risks. There is always a trade between official and >> efficient. >> >>> >>> I could imagine a few system integrators doing it for many clients but that >>> means that only a few people would actually be affected as tool providers. >>> >>> >>>> Those sys admins could configure the new logger to produce logs that look >>>> like the old ones, but then that's extra work that they believe they >>>> shouldn't have to do on a "stable" release, and so forth and so on... >>> I was not aware that 13.07 had a "stable" release so far. >> >> Not officially, but you maybe noticed that the stable demo runs 13.07. >> >>> They knew that there where many risks and potential costs associated with >>> using a development trunk in production. >> >> It's not a development trunk, only bug fixed are committed once a branch is >> freezed >> >>> Perhaps a change of this nature is at the edge of the normal risks but it >>> is clearly within the realm of possibility. >>> Database changes, configuration setting changes, UI changes would be harder >>> to deal with but are part of the risk of putting development into >>> production. >> >> Nope, you can be reassured no new features, improvements will be normally >> committed to a freezed branch. >> That's why Jacopo asked about Java 7 and log4j2. Both are not risky at all, >> so I think it's possible to add them. >> >>> On the good side, they already have 13.07 so they can continue to run on >>> their fork until they have worked out their upgrade process. >>> >>> Can the configuration of the logs be documented as a cookbook or an >>> alternate log4j.xml to reduce the effort if it affects so many? >> >> There is only that for now >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Apache+OFBiz+Technical+Production+Setup+Guide#ApacheOFBizTechnicalProductionSetupGuide-DebugSettings >> But I guess it's enough for most of us >> >>> >>> One would hope that the sysadmin tools are pretty flexible and not tied to >>> a specific logger or worse a specific log format. >> >> I hope so >> >> Jacques >> >>> >>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have not tried Java 8 so I can not comment on where problems can come >>>>> from. >>>>> Our move from 6 to 7 was pretty transparent but we did not have any code >>>>> developed with earlier versions of Java and did not try to retrofit new >>>>> Java 7 capabilities into existing code. >>>> >>>> >>>> There is no Java 7 specific code in the trunk. The recent changes were >>>> merely fixing compatibility issues with Java 6. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have already done this so you know the extent of the effort required. >>>>> I don't have to do the work so..... >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 19/08/2014 10:16 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> I don't have an opinion on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "rule" has been to keep backports restricted to bug fixes only, >>>>>> but we have a history of backporting various refactorings to make >>>>>> branch maintenance easier. >>>>>> >>>>>> From my perspective, the two things cancel each other out, and I end >>>>>> up with no opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/19/2014 2:34 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>> Before I start the process of preparing the release files for the >>>>>>> first release of the 13.07 series and call a vote on it I would like >>>>>>> to get your feedback on a couple of topics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we backport to it the recent switch to Java 7? >>>>>>> Should we backport to it the recent update to Log4j2? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The main reason I am asking this is that once we release the first >>>>>>> release out of 13.07, for sure we will not backport the >>>>>>> aforementioned upgrades (because they are not bugs); however the >>>>>>> 13.07 releases will stay with us for at least 2 years and it would be >>>>>>> nice to do the migration to these new technologies now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [email protected] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >
