https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56310
--- Comment #10 from MWJames <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #9) > This is not "active development", it is bug fixing. People cannot always run > the latest and greatest versions of everything on their servers, especially > when there are a number of interdependencies involved. The stable release > version is going to be around for a while yet and should never get left > hanging > out to dry. Reported issues should not just be closed out of hand. This was not the case no examples were provided that would allow to verify the claim made, on contrary examples were cited that showed a working functionality leaving the bug to be closed based on the given evidence rather than a "out of hand" manner. > If the issue is not present with the SMW master that's great, but the bug was > not raised against SMW master so providing a test case is not relevant to the > report. If no test case is provided and the reported error can't be verified with the current master, how would you decide and test that a problem is fixed or not. A unit test exists to verify an assumption about an expected behaviour. > I think some clarity is required here. Are you suggesting that people have to > constantly update their instances to SMW master in order to receive bug fixes > going forward? I'm not suggesting anything, I stated that "any developer is free to provide fixes and back-ports for any release" which means you are free to install which ever version works best but software patches (if provided) should be "compatible with the current master". > What is going to happen when SMW 1.9 is released and you start working on > 1.10? > Are you then not going to do any bug fixing on the newly released 1.9? If you ask me personally, once 1.9 is released I will focus on other tasks that are not related to 1.9 (but this is just me). > Will be users have to use the 1.10 branch to receive fixes for any issues > that > arise with 1.9? Again, "any developer is free to provide fixes and back-ports" which means that if a developer sees the need for a back-port he/she is free to do so. > If this is a new policy going forward, then I think people need to be made > aware of this right now before committing themselves to a path that may not > be > suitable for them. I suggest further discussion should be made on the mailing > list and a support policy published. Please feel free to do so, it is a community project and I hope that people will commit themselves to a broader support infrastructure and more developers take up the opportunity to be involved but please don't expect core-developers to restrict themselves to invest their volunteer time on issues they might not seem relevant to them. See also [1]. > I'm curious as to who the developers being referred to are? I thought SMW My previous statement "any developer is free to provide fixes and back-ports" includes all developers who want to provide software improvements (back-ports, fixes, new developments etc.). It is a volunteer and community project therefore anyone is encouraged to extend and improve the software. Having said this, probably most core-developers will focus on evolving the current master aiming towards objectives stated within the roadmap [1]. > was a > community project? So in this spirit, I am re-opening this issue in case > there > is someone running the current stable release version with the time and > interest to investigate and fix if required. If the bug is closed, it will > not > be seen by someone who might like to contribute. If the issue is not solved, > or > becomes irrelevant going forward we can review. Maybe the bug title should reflect that is an issue with 1.8.x (but apparently it is not citing the example of kgh). > I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just really don't want to see SMW > adopting the constant beta model practised by the likes of Google et al. > Quality inevitably suffers and people get fed up and lose interest. Perhaps This is why I ask for "an appropriate unit test or a repeatable test description" so that it can be verified, fixed, and tested to improve overall quality and stability. > I've misunderstood and this is not the path that has been chosen. SMW is a volunteer project, expecting a support infrastructure like that of a commercial product is more suited and left to specialised service providers [2] (this is not a hidden advertisement as I'm not involved in any professional support). [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Backporting_fixes [2] http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap [3] http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Professional_support PS: I will further excuse myself from this bug in order to focus on more pressing issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
