Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

Yes it is also how I understood it. 2.0 will be focused on adoption / new users. We have to take care to not forget our existing users who are following us for 10 years and for these new users who will be in a near future the ones to ask for performances and stability improvements. Maybe like

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > Will it increase the stability and performances of Jenkins. Not under current plans, no. IIUC the benefits would mostly be for new users who would start with small installations anyway. -- You received this message

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

> > > And Jenkins 2.0 is a big change for users --- you suddenly get a whole lot of > new things you haven't used before, and it encourages & promotes different > ways of using it. I think it's well qualified to call it 2.0, and I don't > think it's trying to untrain the general expectation.

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

2015-10-08 5:01 GMT-07:00 Nigel Magnay : > >> Ok, I'll bite. >> >> There are a number of conflicting things we need to balance. >> >> * There are some bigger UI/UX refreshes that we want to get out to >> users. A long standing complaint is that the Jenkins UI/UX is dated.

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:14:47 PM UTC+3, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote: > > > 2015-10-08 5:01 GMT-07:00 Nigel Magnay > : > >> >>> Ok, I'll bite. >>> >>> There are a number of conflicting things we need to balance. >>> >>> * There are some bigger UI/UX refreshes that we

2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

We have differing visions of what "Jenkins 2.0" would actually mean, and those visions are to a certain extent mutually incompatible - getting 2.0 out in the timeframe Kohsuke has proposed wouldn't be possible if that requires not just the user experience work he has mentioned but also storage

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Vojtech Juranek wrote: > in general I agree with your (I'd like to see changes in backend happen as > well), but I'm not sure about this one - you don't expect any API changes > or > you propose to do backward incompatible changes in a minor

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

Hi, > another set of devs will be working > on the initial storage changes, targeting 2.15 or something like that in general I agree with your (I'd like to see changes in backend happen as well), but I'm not sure about this one - you don't expect any API changes or you propose to do backward

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

+1 for breaking activities into threads, +1 to let Andrew lead the database backend activity; +100500 for moving all compat changes to the third track. Had the same proposal in the Jenkins 2.0 thread, but it has been lost in other comments. Compat track is a painful stuff, but I think that

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

On 8 October 2015 at 11:45, Nigel Magnay wrote: > >> We have differing visions of what "Jenkins 2.0" would actually mean, and >> those visions are to a certain extent mutually incompatible - getting 2.0 >> out in the timeframe Kohsuke has proposed wouldn't be possible if

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote: > Pluggable storage/database backend - Scope to be determined, myself as > shepherd, target release date of April 2016. This seems a very optimistic schedule based on my experience of what ought to have been far simpler

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

Fair enough. On Oct 8, 2015 14:04, "Jesse Glick" wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Bayer > wrote: > > Pluggable storage/database backend - Scope to be determined, myself as > > shepherd, target release date of April 2016. > > This

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

> We have differing visions of what "Jenkins 2.0" would actually mean, and > those visions are to a certain extent mutually incompatible - getting 2.0 > out in the timeframe Kohsuke has proposed wouldn't be possible if that > requires not just the user experience work he has mentioned but also >

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

> > > Ok, I'll bite. > > There are a number of conflicting things we need to balance. > > * There are some bigger UI/UX refreshes that we want to get out to > users. A long standing complaint is that the Jenkins UI/UX is dated. > Moving to a 2.0 label corresponding to the visible UI changes helps

Re: 2.0 - breaking out into multiple tracks

That sounds reasonable to me. Given the likelihood that I misjudged how long the storage change would take, it's very plausible that any of the larger architectural improvements would take long enough to wait for late 2016. On Oct 8, 2015 14:57, "Baptiste Mathus" wrote: > Maybe