manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafa Haro <rh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Compatibility between 1.x and 2.0, and release plans going forward
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:06:50 GMT
OK thanks Karl. That sounds much more better :-), because we will be focused only in one branch
development at the end.

I would like also to share with you some of concerns we have collected while working the last
months with MCF. I will work on a comprehensive list as soon as possible. Some of them will
probably not fix with the current status and others would probably imply major changes not
applicable right now. My aim with this is just to know your opinion, because we can be completely
wrong of course.

One of the main problem for us for example has been to deal with the UI when we wanted to
include complex configuration stuff beyond key/value configuration fields. With the current
approach, for example, we have spent too much time by debugging manually generated HTML and
Javascript code. I see too much coupled the UI management with the business logic. Is there
any idea for improving this for version 2.0?

Thanks,
Rafa

En 9 de octubre de 2014 en 10:45:56, Karl Wright (daddywri@gmail.com) escrito:

Hi Rafa,  

I committed the MCF 2.0 version of the connector you contributed, and then  
pulled it up (using svn merge -c XXX) to the dev_1x branch. Currently,  
connectors developed with MCF 2.0 in mind will work on 1.7 or later.  

The procedure for _any_ development of new features and most fixes at this  
time is as follows:  

- code the feature/fix against trunk  
- pull up the feature/fix to the dev_1x branch, if appropriate  

Hope this help!  
Karl  


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Rafa Haro <rharo@apache.org> wrote:  

> Hi Karl,  
>  
> That list of issues makes completely sense for a 1.8 version. I’m then  
> confuse on the development process for maintaining two branches, 1.8-dev  
> and 2.0. For example, for contributing the Alfresco Webscript connector I  
> implemented two versions because of the changes from 1.7 to trunk. Is the  
> plan to do the same for the issues in that list when necessary?  
>  
> Thanks,  
> Rafa  
>  
> En 9 de octubre de 2014 en 10:33:53, Karl Wright (daddywri@gmail.com)  
> escrito:  
>  
> Hi Rafa,  
>  
> Have a look at  
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/manifoldcf/branches/dev_1x/CHANGES.txt  
> for  
> the current list. I've just created a JIRA 1.8 version too, but haven't  
> updated the tickets yet to include proper "fix in" values for the issues  
> listed in CHANGES.txt.  
>  
> Karl  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Rafa Haro <rharo@apache.org> wrote:  
>  
> > Hi Karl,  
> >  
> > What is supposed to be included in a reputed version 1.8?  
> >  
> > Thanks,  
> > Rafa  
> >  
> > En 9 de octubre de 2014 en 10:20:45, Karl Wright (daddywri@gmail.com)  
> > escrito:  
> >  
> > As you may recall, at the end of the 1.7 release cycle, there was a show  
> of  
> > hands as to whether 2.0 should be the next ManifoldCF release, and  
> whether  
> > that should break backwards compatibility. There were only positive  
> > comments for that plan, so that is what we adopted.  
> >  
> > It's come to my attention that there are some folks in the community that  
> > were unaware of that discussion, or are having some second thoughts. Just  
> > to be clear on the release policy as it currently stands, here it is:  
> >  
> > (1) ManifoldCF 2.x development is currently taking place on trunk.  
> > ManifoldCF 1.x development is taking place on branches/dev_1x.  
> >  
> > (2) There is a 2.0 release scheduled for December 31, 2014. Heretofore, I  
> > had not scheduled a 1.8 release, but we may decide to do that release in  
> > the same time frame as well.  
> >  
> > (3) All ManifoldCF 1.x future releases will remain backwards compatible  
> > with all earlier versions of ManifoldCF. ManifoldCF 1.7, for instance, is  
> > (supposedly) completely backwards compatible with 1.6, 1.5, etc.  
> >  
> > (4) ManifoldCF 2.0 is NOT backwards-compatible with 1.x. Future 2.x  
> > releases, though, will be backwards-compatible with 2.0 etc.  
> >  
> > I see no reason why we would stop supporting ManifoldCF 1.x at this time;  
> > indeed, I would expect there to be further releases of the 1.x branch for  
> > maybe even a year or more. The upgrade strategy I would recommend is as  
> > follows:  
> >  
> > (1) New users should go with MCF 2.0 (after it has been released).  
> > (2) Existing users should consider upgrading to MCF 2.0 ONLY if they  
> have a  
> > good reason to do so, such as new functionality that is only present in  
> > 2.x. Eventually, we will stop developing 1.x, but that's quite some time  
> > in the future.  
> >  
> > During the MCF 2.0 development cycle, I've been trying to make sure that  
> > the dev_1x branch includes all important changes that don't rely on MCF  
> > 2.0-specific constructions. So the next dev_1x release will be quite  
> rich,  
> > as well as remaining backwards compatible. If you have specific 2.0  
> > features that you think may _not_ have made it to 1.x, please post about  
> > it.  
> >  
> >  
> > Also, when should we release MCF 1.8? I think releasing at about the same  
> > time as MCF 2.0 makes the most sense, but will be a lot of release work.  
> > Thoughts?  
> >  
> > Karl  
> >  
>  

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message