Am 28. Februar 2016 12:20:30 MEZ, schrieb tflidd <[email protected]>: >Hi, > >I really appreciate the efforts you put in the improvement of the >upgrade process and the new integrity check will hopefully reduce >problems with code of different versions. Just bypassing checks, which >were put in place for a reason, is not a very good idea. > >Other web applications went the way to provide long term releases >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support), perhaps an idea for >owncloud? I think, there are a lot of people who like owncloud but who >are not so enthusiast that they need every new feature. They were happy >with owncloud 7.0, and now as it reaches EOL they need to upgrade. >Unfortunately, it's not one, it's a series of upgrades. >
A new major version of ownCloud is not only about new features. Fixing some bugs - especially in the area of performance - do require architectural changes which can only go into major versions. Finally after 18 month we even don't put effort into security updates. With respect to the maintenance effort I don't see us in the position to provide a LTS. Sorry. Tom >This probably requires a different planning and all update-routines >would have to be adopted. > >tflidd > > > >Am 28.02.2016 um 11:43 schrieb Lukas Reschke: >> See also https://github.com/owncloud/core/issues/22313 and >> https://github.com/owncloud/core/issues/22310 >> >> We're spending significant time in core on already fixed bugs. I >don't >> consider this really helpful for us nor our users. This is taking >user >> data at risk by intention. >> >> - Lukas >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 at 11:15, Lukas Reschke <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I stand with my comments. If some downstream people believe they >> know it better than upstream they are illusional and taking user >> data at risk. If this doesn't work with the way they distribute >> packages they should not distribute it OR add extensive testing >> sets to core to prove that updates will work. And of course users >> have to follow our update processes. That's why we have code in >> place that enforces it. If they remove that then they simply are >> not using ownCloud but a fork which should be marked as such. Our >> code integrity check will detect such situations. And yes, this >is >> a longterm goal that we're aiming at and there are tickets for >it. >> What they do is taking user data at risk AND outsourcing support >> to us in case it breaks. An unacceptable move from my PoV. >Instead >> of randomly deciding that this works downstream should have filed >> an issue and worked with us to the goal to support this in >future. >> Note that the version that Debian has in stable also is missing >> quite a few bug fixes leading to data loss. My blog post recently >> highlighted one. Seriously. This whole "we randomly backport >> patches that we consider critical" thing is just not suited for >> fast evolving web apps like ownCloud. >> - Lukas >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 at 11:00, Klaas Freitag <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 27.02.2016 15:49, Lukas Reschke wrote: >> > This is super dangerous stuff from Debian and I*HIGHLY* >> would advise >> > anybody from NOT using distribution packages for ownCloud. >> > >> > Highly irresponsible from them to risk user data like that. >> Honestly, the >> > maintainer should know better. >> >> Sorry, but this is over the top. Of course debians way of >> patching this >> is wrong, but have you ever thought about why they do it? >> >> It is completely naive to think that users (using distro >> packages or >> not) will always follow the upgrade path ownClouds core devs >> think is >> good. ownCloud isn't the center of the world for everybody. >> >> One could easily argue that ownCloud is badly architected if >> it is not >> able to detect which version it is updating from and to which >> it updates >> to. From that information it could be able to build a list of >> actions to >> perform. Other systems manage to do that. If that is too hard >> with the >> underlying technology we are using that is a different thing, >> but in >> means a reason for this bashing comments. That is not helping >> anybody. >> >> We should spend our energy to improve things rather than >> pointing to >> each other. In FOSS we're all in the same boat. >> >> regards, >> Klaas >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >_______________________________________________ >Devel mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
