Re: Polluting the vote thread, was: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

Sure, just that Taher started with "I'm not sure what is the necessity for skipping a branch." and I wanted to explain more my perspective. OK the buck stop here :) Jacques Le 24/01/2020 à 17:57, Michael Brohl a écrit : Could you please stop discussing inside the vote thread itself?

Re: Polluting the vote thread, was: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

Could you please stop discussing inside the vote thread itself? Firstly, we discussed beforehand and the vote should be held on base of that discussion. If more infomation is added we might even have to cancel the vote again because participants who already voted had another base of

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

That could be a good idea Gil, As I just said to Nicolas and Taher, though I'm not sure why (but the tools missing?), I see less backporting since we turned to Git. Maybe having less branches to backport to would help indeed... Le 24/01/2020 à 17:36, Gil Portenseigne a écrit : I wonder if it

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

Forgot: sorry for the resentment, it's not specially against you, most of us are not backporting since we turned to Git. I don't think it's a coincidence, but maybe there are other reasons? Le 24/01/2020 à 17:35, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Hi Taher, Are you backporting  much?  Since we

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

I wonder if it is bad for the project to have 2 years between two releases, 16 => 18 => 20 WDYT ? Gil On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit : > > On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > > > I must say I'm

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

Hi Taher, Are you backporting  much?  Since we switched to Git? Mmm OK, none. this may explain that ;) As I said to Nicolas: <> Let's see what the future will tell us... Jacques Le 24/01/2020 à 15:11, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : -1 I'm not sure what is the necessity for skipping a

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit : On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort necessary to backport to both R17 and R18 About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a R19 before ;) If we follow

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

-1 I'm not sure what is the necessity for skipping a branch. On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 4:19 PM Gil Portenseigne wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > Hi, > > > > R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of > support. We > > can

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Ah OK, It was not clear to me (and to Jacopo I guess), anyway the 1st > vote was confusing, thanks for voting again. I already done ;) > > I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort > necessary to backport to both R17 and R18 > >

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

Ah OK, It was not clear to me (and to Jacopo I guess), anyway the 1st vote was confusing, thanks for voting again. I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort necessary to backport to both R17 and R18 About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a R19

Re: [DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

Finally I voted to didn't skip the R17 in contradiction with my previous message for the simple reason to respect the old deprecation code process and increase the release activity. For OFBiz integrator this change nothing because mostly use directly the release branch on git, so the choice must

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

+1 On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of support. We > can soon expect a last release but we need to think about the next to be > released package > > Some would prefer to release R17 before

Re: Removing “base/config/component-load.xml”

Hi Jacques, yes, my objection is targeted to the removal of the component-load.xml mechanism for applications and plugins. I don't think it will be a problem to remove it from framework/base/config/ and hard code the four existing components framework, themes, applications and plugins.

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

-1 Nicolas On 24/01/2020 11:27, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of > support. We can soon expect a last release but we need to think about > the next to be released package > > Some would prefer to release R17 before releasing R18,

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

-1 Michael Brohl ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de Am 24.01.20 um 11:27 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: Hi, R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of support. We can soon expect a last release but we need to think about the next to be released package Some would prefer to

Re: [VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

+1 Best regards, Pierre Smits *Apache Trafodion , Vice President* *Apache Directory , PMC Member* Apache Incubator , committer *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)

Re: [VOTE] Bypass R17 release and directly publish R18 instead

Sorry Nicolas, As Jacopo mentioned the subject, and the question in text, were confusing. I invalidated this vote and started a new one called: "[VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead." Please re-vote, thanks Jacques Le 24/01/2020 à 09:30, Nicolas Malin a écrit : +1 On

[VOTE] Do not release R17 and directly publish R18 instead.

Hi, R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of support. We can soon expect a last release but we need to think about the next to be released package Some would prefer to release R17 before releasing R18, some would prefer to bypass R17 release and directly publish R18

[INVALIDATED VOTE] (was [VOTE] Bypass R17 release and directly publish R18 instead)

This officially invalidates the vote because the subject was confusing Jacques Le 24/01/2020 à 08:11, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Hi, R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of support. We can soon expect a last release but we need to think about the next. Some would

Re: [VOTE] Bypass R17 release and directly publish R18 instead

Hi Jacopo, Right, the subject is confusing, I invalidate this vote now and start a new clear one Jacques Le 24/01/2020 à 09:56, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : 0 Jacopo PS: this call to vote is a bit confusing because the title of the vote says "Bypass R17..." but a +1 vote asks to "release

Re: [VOTE] Bypass R17 release and directly publish R18 instead

0 Jacopo PS: this call to vote is a bit confusing because the title of the vote says "Bypass R17..." but a +1 vote asks to "release R17..."; thus if the vote will be successful we will NOT bypassR17 On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:12 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi, >

Re: [VOTE] Bypass R17 release and directly publish R18 instead

+1 On 24/01/2020 08:11, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > R16 is now an old distribution and has almost reached its end of > support. We can soon expect a last release but we need to think about > the next. > > Some would prefer to release R17 before releasing R18, some would > prefer to bypass