Problem with LTS is to have a
dedicated maintainer for the supported versions.
I don't think we're speaking about versionS but one LTS at a
time.
On 30/07/2012 21:11, Régis Houssin wrote:
simultaneouslyall versionsweremore or lesscorrectedover time,forexample3.1 we're atversion 3.1.3 versionsare notofficiallyannouncedbut they exist. Moreover,the3.2.1isalreadyused by some:-) whena problem
occurs,we tryto fix itonall the latest versions(3.1,3.2)when possible.
Le 30/07/12 21:05, Laurent
Destailleur (eldy) a écrit :
To answer this question (When),
we must first answer another question: Who ?
Doing a long time support is still possible. But who will
maintain it ? And if we found someone that agree to keep
using an old version and maintain it, how to be sure he will
still be active during all the long time support period. For
the moment, we have not answer for this, so no way to
guarantee an long time support version.
Le 30/07/2012 17:05, Marcos García a écrit :
In my opinion, as long as Dolibarr is stable
there's no need to make a LTS version, if the Dolibarr team
decides to make a modification to the code that brokens
backwards compatibility I think that it is because that's
the correct way. It is our job as developers, to fix
compatibility in third-party modules with newer versions,
but it is not our job to care about people not upgrading
their modules.
I know many people won't agree with me and I think my
opinion is like "Planned obsolescence" but the web changes
every day and I think that we cannot stay in old days...
Faites un geste pour la planète, n'imprimez
ce message que si nécessaire.
Le 30/07/2012 16:42, aurelien Imhof a
écrit :
Hello ,
Je suis avec la version 3.1, que j'ai mise a jour il y a quelques mois.
toutefois , le temps de voir apparaître certain module en version 3.2, je ne
souhaite pas upgrader tout de suite.
Resultat , je me retrouve avec certain bug corrigé dans la version 3.2.
Ma question est simple, n'y aurait il pas interet, afin de stabiliser la
version utilisé en production a proposer une version en LTS à l'instar ubuntu.
Vu de ma porte, ce permettrait de limiter les upgrades incessant sur les
instance de mes clients.
Ca vous parle ?
--- en --
I'm using version 3.1, I updated a few months ago. however, the time of seeing
certain module in version 3.2, I do not wish to upgrade immediately.
Result, I end up with some bug fixed in version 3.2.
My question is simple, there would he no interest, to stabilize the version
used in production to propose an LTS version like Ubuntu.
Seen from my door, it would reduce the constant upgrades on instance of my
clients.
It speaks to you?
