Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > But isn't this the purpose of the "stable" branch? As Vincent mentioned, I also think that's pretty much as stable as our small development team can provide. If we want a "rock solid" branch and there is a dev that can commit to that (again, as Vincent mentioned), sure. Otherwise, having each dev backport each fix for 2 older releases might be an overkill. So I`m +1 for Vincent`s proposal. Thanks, Eduard > 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 <[email protected] > >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 < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 05/22/2012 04:39 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > one > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 > > back. > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 > > think > > > it's the community's job. > > > I wouldn't expect Linus Torvolds to support 2.4.x, but RedHat can. > > > > > > Caleb > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > devs mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devs mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
