Hi,
List of issue report since 10 day :-(.
Le 09/09/2012 10:52, Olivier Hanesse a écrit :
Indeed,
Next time, I think we need to release the RC and wait at least 2
weeks(1 month) before making it "stable".
But this version 1.2 was kinda "special" ;)
David, what bugs are you talking about ?
A new tag aka 1.2.1 will be out soon I think, we need to correct them
before.
Olivier
2012/9/9 david hannequin <david.hanneq...@gmail.com
<mailto:david.hanneq...@gmail.com>>
Hi,
I can't update shinken in 1.2 on my production server because
version 1.2 is unstable ( and there lot of bug ). So that why i
think we need more test before final release.
Best regard
Le 06/09/2012 15:35, Olivier Hanesse a écrit :
I agree with nap
One exception : in the future, with the "2.0" release, AND if
this release is breaking a lot of things (full redesign,
configuration changes etc..), we can maintain a 1.x stable with
bugfix.
Otherwise, I think it is useless.
Olivier
2012/9/6 nap <napar...@gmail.com <mailto:napar...@gmail.com>>
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Hartmut Goebel
<h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com
<mailto:h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com>> wrote:
> xkilina wrot in https://github.com/naparuba/shinken/pull/567:
>
>> Well, we should aim to have everything ready by friday. So
come monday
> morning, new users can download 1.2.1 and get cooking.
After that 1.2.2
> for whatever comes out of next week or the two weeks after
that...
>
>> Which is why we need to have the discussion about stable
versus dev.
>
> Here is my opinion:
>
> First of all you need to decide whether then 1.2.x-releases
should be
> bug-fixes only or also contain other changes.
>
> After this I recommend having a look at
> <http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>.
I have
> learned a lot of it and am using this model for my
projects. I recommend
> using this model (or a slightly adopted version).
>
Hi,
It's a really good question. I think such a heavy model is
great when
you have all in-house dev, where you can easily add some
shell things
to manage it easily (I remeber about such a shell project on
github
for managing this model), but will kill participation for new
commiters. If I take my example, if I see that there are su much
branch on a project, I'll only manage a patch on my side and
don't try
to learn all project branch when I will send a pull request.
Remember
than most commiters on this project are admins, not dev.
Asking them a
pull request with great code and comment is already great,
asking them
to learn all branching things is just too much in this realm.
Of course we got some huge works in progress in dev, and this
is good.
Let take an example of a hugely moving item : the WebUI. When
we moved
from Mootools to JQuery, Andreas create a devel branch where
we get
back all things in WebUI (and it took months :p ). This is a
great
way. One level of branching is great for huge things. More is
it just
too much.
Then there are minors things, like fixing typo, a new test, a
bug fix
or a small feature that is not activate by default (so no
impact).
Such things don't need a branch. the dev should know if a
branch is
need or not. If he doesn't know, then the good thing is to
create a
branch then.
But remember than each branch will make the merge harder,
even if with
git it's more a pain in the ass than svn or cvs. It's still
different
codes to merge in the end, so always more difficult than just
a trunk.
I don't also think that it's up to the community project to
manage all
bug backporting. I more see then project as Fedora, not as a
RedHat
like one. If people want stability and bug fix on a 2years
version
because they fear too much a change, they can ask to an
integrator for
this. It's their job. The project should allow people to
propose new
features and ideas. Putting too much branch things is a good
way to
kill this.
So we must rely on the test cases for knowing if we break
something or
not. Tests should never be broken on master, because this
version can
be the next version from a day to another. If there is a bug,
it means
that there is a flaw in tests, and they must be enhanced.
But asking
for a stable-branch is like saying "ok we got test cases but
we don't
really got faith in them". So if something new breaks test,
it must be
put in branch too until this is fixed, or is waiting in a
pull request
until so :)
I think the "if it breaks something or change user habits too
much
from the last version, put it in branch" is a light and good
way. So
the pull requests of new commiters are still in master, but pull
requests are like a branch that don't break master until we
really
merge them.
What others are thinking about this? Where should be put the
cursor
between "RedHat stable + backporting" and "Gnome3/KDE4 that
breaks all
each release" ? :)
Jean
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond.
Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the
latest in malware
threats.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shinken-devel mailing list
Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shinken-devel mailing list
Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond.
Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in
malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shinken-devel mailing list
Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shinken-devel mailing list
Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shinken-devel mailing list
Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
