So the problem isn’t what is actually in a particular build, just what we call
it. Long term support (backporting further than we do now) is an orthogonal
issue, and is not what I was suggesting.
I was suggesting making upgrades (potentially) easier using a combination of
two things:
* A different versioning scheme (see below)
* Putting everything that might be needed in a single zip file
(geoserver-with-extensions-war.zip)
Using a single zip file can reduce paperwork for getting files into certain
environments (6 zip files = 6 times as many paperwork submissions)
The versioning scheme would be mappable to the current and future schemes:
Current plan GeoServer 2.14.0 would become GeoServer 22.0 or GeoServer 20.0,
and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.1 (since no-one wants
to field 1.0.0, right 😊)
Current plan GeoServer 2.14.1 would become GeoServer 22.1 or GeoServer 20.1,
and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.1Mx1
Current plan GeoServer 2.15.0 would become GeoServer 23.0 or GeoServer 21.0,
and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.2
Note that the “GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0” part of the name can be anything
(and probably should be something else). We could use “GeoServer UltraStable
2.13”.
The only things that would change in an implementation sense would be to add
another release module (to pick up all the core + extensions we want to
include) and a rename step in the release script. It might be nice if we could
read the version from a config file or something, and to generate docs with a
different cover page, but that isn’t really that important.
Brad
From: Chris Snider <chris.sni...@polarisalpha.com>
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 2:51 AM
To: Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it>; Brad Hards <br...@frogmouth.net>
Cc: Geoserver-devel <geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer
be "GeoServer 22.0"?
As Andrea stated in another email on the thread, this is for discussion and not
an direct contradiction to changing the versioning scheme. Mostly it is to
raise awareness on how some customers treat product upgrades,
right/wrong/indifferent.
However, I did raise the question with several product owners in the company,
and the general consensus confirms my initial thought that it would be more
difficult to move to newer “major” releases.
Chris Snider
Senior Software Engineer
From: Andrea Aime [mailto:andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:50 AM
To: Brad Hards <br...@frogmouth.net <mailto:br...@frogmouth.net> >
Cc: Geoserver-devel <geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer
be "GeoServer 22.0"?
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, <br...@frogmouth.net
<mailto:br...@frogmouth.net> > wrote:
I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the
amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at
all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product
A enterprise/LTS version has been discussed a number of times.
Community wise, it's normally costly. It's already hard enough to backport
something from master to 2.12.x (gave up a
number of times already), trying to keep fixes going back on something older is
going to be even more challenging.
As said in other threads, I believe we are at full capacity (well, beyond it
imho) and need to reduce effort, not increase it further.
Unless one can argue that having a LTS would bring more devs acting as
maintainers to the project (key-word being
maintainer, more occasional contributors would just add to the existing
maintainers plate, which is already overflowing).
A way to justify that is if the enterprise version is a paid product, then you
can justify spending hours porting back
a 10 liner because there is a revenue stream attached. That has also been
tried, kept around for a while,
was not well received by the potential customers and then dropped.
Cheers
Andrea
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V
for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions
S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax:
+39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla
normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento
generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza
inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è
un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo
scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo,
ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene
notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European
Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or
the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us
immediately by telephone or e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
