Le 03/11/10 09:57, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit : > On 11/01/2010 12:50 PM, Gregory GUENEAU wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am +1 to make stabilization work, on a couple of releases >> I am +1 to have soon a 3.0 release >> And i am +1 on the content vincent propose >> >> But my point of view is -1 stepping the release family number because the >> main purpose of what is discussed here is stabilization, and not showing the >> path of 3.x family. >> >> Therefore : >> - do we consider a january 2011 release to be stable enough ? >> - stabilization work wouldn'it be leading then to the last 2.x version >> instead of the first 3.x family version ? >> - is there behind it a consensus on what we will concentrate our effort in >> 3.x versions ? I mean thematics we can talk about. >> - therefore, are we in a situation where we can vote on the global thematics >> we will develop in 3.x releases ? >> - do we have a clear consensus short list of features that show the path of >> 3.x family ? >> - in consequence of that, is the release content here send a clear message >> to uneducated publics about what is in this future 3.x versions ? >> - do educated people care this much about release number, that we absolutely >> have to release a 3.0 with the content presented below ? > From the committers' point of view, it makes perfect sense for 3.0 to > be the culmination of the 2.x releases, but I'm not sure the users > understand this as well, so I'm extending the question to the users list. > > Traditionally, proprietary software is developed behind the curtains, > and it's normal to have one big release every two years, with lots of > new features and some bugs which get fixed in subsequent bugfix > releases. Marketing comes mostly from the proprietary software world, so > from a marketing point of view, this is the "normal" way releases work. > > In the open source world, since the development is done in the open, it > doesn't make sense to stash code away in a repository and only release > it once every two years. Still, most big projects use a release > versioning scheme similar to the proprietary products, but with a slight > difference which deeply changes the meaning. While proprietary products > use only a number (3, 8, 2010...), with eventual bugfixes versions (SP2, > 5.5), open source usually has 3 numbers in its versions, with the > following meanings: > > The first number changes rarely, and when it does, it signals a critical > change, like a complete rewrite of the codebase, a change of paradigm, > or major new features. The second number is the one that actually > identifies a release. The third number is the bugfix version. So, when > we say that PHP 5.3.2 was released, we actually say that version 3 of > PHP5, which is a different thing than PHP4, has been released again, > giving the second bugfix release. KDE 4.5.1 means version 5 of KDE4 saw > its first bugfix release. > > Another tendency is for open source software to linger towards a major > release. For example, lots of software have a lot of releases before > 1.0, going nearer and nearer: 0.6, 0.9, 0.9.9... And everybody knows > that 0.x comes before 1.0, and it's not just a bugfix version of an > imaginary 0.0 release. > > A different topic is that of agile development, with very short releases > (2-3 weeks) for which traditional version number make no sense, since > such a product would reach version 42 in a couple of years. Either an > identifier, such as the SCM version number is used, or a continuous > counter (v1.42) is used. Since the software evolves in a fluid manner, > without a "breakthrough" version coming out of the regular releases, a > "major" version is released when the current features are stable and > they mix well together in a coherent product. Since releases come so > frequently, it's normal for users to be split into two categories: those > that follow the releases and know how the software is evolving, and > those that only monitor the major releases, and which see all the > continuous improvements at once. > > While XWiki Enterprise is used in the enterprise environment, and it is > backed by commercial companies, it is a true open source project, > following an open source release model, so I don't think that a > proprietary product release scheme is suited. > > Our development/release style is closer to the agile development > practice, albeit with mixed release types. In the future, once the core > is more stable than it is now, we'd like to move even closer to a full > agile release process, with 2-3 weeks between final releases. Thus, I > believe that the last release versioning strategy is the best for XWiki > Enterprise. > > Note that we're already using this strategy in a more obvious way for > smaller modules (applications, skins, tools), where we do have 1.32 as a > stable version number. > > Also note that although 1.9 was followed by 2.0, this was just a > coincidence, and not a natural version evolution, since we also felt > that the code was mature enough to receive a major number bump, but it > could just as well have been followed by a 1.10. > > So, there are two different opinions here. One that 3.0 should present > the groundwork/roadmap for the following 3.x releases, and one that 3.0 > should be the culmination of the work done so far on the 2.x releases. > > The committers (with the exception of Ludovic) believe that the latter > is the better one, and it is in accordance with what we've been doing so > far. What do our users think? > Hi,
I'd like to point out that it's not that I'm against a 3.0 being the final release of the 2.x cycle, but that there is an oddity of doing that, and that I proposed an alternate scheme that does not say 3.0 is the first of the new cycle, but that actually removes the notion of 3.0 by using a "text" naming scheme instead of a numbering scheme and that the first release would be called XWiki RELEASENAME Release 1 (instead of 3.0). And in order to know which one is the final one to use "RTM" or "Gold" for the last release of a cycle. This is just a proposal to try to avoid the .0 oddity where in the software world .0 are usually the less finished release of a cycle. Finally as Ricardo, once you understand XWiki the numbering scheme is not that important and I agree that what you want to know is wether a feature is BETA or STABLE in each release whatever the numbering is. The main usage of the final version is to improve communication around it (press likes articles about new major versions). For that I agree that .0 is always going to be better. Ludovic > As a final remark, the XWiki Open Source projects are governed by the > committers, so in the end the decision lies in the hands of the > developers, but we're always open to the larger community. If no > consensus is reached about when to release 3.0, we will continue > releasing 2.x versions. > > > What do XWiki users think? Is 3.0 as a culmination of the 2.x releases, > with no major new features besides what 2.5 already provides, something > the community expects? > > >> We have to make 100% sure our message will be understood by market. We are >> now in the Gartner magic quadrant and will increase our visibility outside >> the opensource community. In a world where new release number families means >> : "we show the path of the future of this software, even if the features we >> present are not perfect", i will strongly promote to answer in details the >> questions i mentionned before deciding 2.8 to be in fact 3.0. > XWiki SAS is in the Gartner report, as a vendor. The XWiki Enterprise > project is not in that report. I think the marketing direction that > Gregory and Ludovic are supporting is better suited for the company > offerings. > >> Then here is the two elements that are probably the biggest things in the >> roadmap for 3.x versions : >> - going social (workspaces in xem, twitter like app, page stats for the >> user, etc.) >> - going to be an easy place to develop in (extension manager of course, but >> also documentation for dummies and a first app like "app within minute" >> proposed by guillaume and strongly needed by our front team) >> >> Is there a consensus on this list ? Then what should be the "demo" features >> we could present to be consistent for a 3.0 release ? > Yes, these should be central in the future 3.x releases, but not in 3.0, > which should be as stable as possible, without any "demo" features. > >> Best >> >> >> >> On 1 nov. 2010, at 09:23, Vincent Massol<vinc...@massol.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Sergiu started mentioning the idea of a XE 3.0 when we defined the XE 2.6 >>> roadmap. We need a more general agreement that we want a XE 3.0 and how to >>> reach it. >>> >>> As Sergiu I believe we need a XE 3.0 ASAP for the following reasons: >>> >>> - it's been a bit more than 1 year since the XE 2.0 release and I feel it's >>> good to have one major release every year >>> - we've added **lots** of features since XE 2.0. Check >>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReleaseNotes to get a feeling >>> - it's good for open source marketing >>> >>> Before being able to release XE 3.0 I think: >>> >>> - XE 2.6 is already planned for the 18th of November (with "mail this page" >>> and "recent activity" features + icon/emoticon and wikiword support that >>> was sneaked in surreptitiously) >>> - We should have a XE 2.7 release (1 month duration, ie leading us to the >>> 18th of December) to finish started stuff: >>> -- Finish the Gadget integration since it's been started already and it's >>> important. That said I'd actually be ok to not finish it if we think it's >>> too much to release XE 3.0 quickly according to the dates below. Anca to >>> tell us if it's possible in the timeframe. >>> -- First working extension manager that can be used to install XARs >>> (replaces the old Packager on the back end side). Thomas to tell us if it's >>> possible in the timeframe. >>> -- Recent Activity with apps sending events (XE 2.6 will already have a >>> good part of it) >>> -- UI finishing touches >>> -- Some additional Security and Performance improvements if possible >>> -- etc (add what you'd like to see absolutely here - it should be work >>> already started as much as possible and no new stuff) >>> - Release XE 3.0 one month after the XE 2.7 release, ie around 18th of >>> January - ie end of January 2011) >>> >>> Very important: XE 3.0 should be a maturation/conclusion release, i.e. >>> concluding all the work started in the 2.x series (same as what we did for >>> XE 2.0). It shouldn't be seen as revolutionary stuff that we should add >>> from now on since it'll take a year more before those can be fully >>> stabilized and we would loose the window of opportunity of doing a major >>> release now. >>> >>> Note: We shouldn't try to cram too much things in since that'll extend the >>> lead time to release XE 3.0 and we'll loose the stabilization effect. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent > -- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
