ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Anticipate the end of life of the 13.07 branch and backport some non-bug related changes to the 14.12 and 15.12 branches
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2016 12:52:54 GMT
I guess Sharan used Nabble, I did not see her message before writing mine. Anyway still my
opinion.

Jacques


Le 02/07/2016 à 11:55, Pierre Smits a écrit :
> HI Charl, All,
>
> To add to the thoughts shared by Sharan, the release branch 14.12 also
> brought back components excluded in the 13.07 branch and releases. Our
> release branches are not only for use of developers, but are intended to
> cut releases from.
>
> Also, the privileged contributors have - in several cases - also backported
> improvements from trunk into release branches.
>
> Sharan is correct regarding risk!
> Without a shared agreement - on conclusions derived from discussion threads
> - by the contributors with binding powers (PMC Members), any privileged
> contributor (those contributors with commit privileges) can do whatever
> they want in any of the branches.
> They can continue to add bug fixes to branches. Also, any contributor can
> continue to register issues regarding specific branches/releases and
> provide patches to fix those.
> This helps adopters to both minimise risk as well as stay connected to the
> project: They can use JIRA as a risk reporting and monitoring mechanism and
> the projects code repos (ASF SVN/Git, Github) as code source for those
> aspects of their OFBiz implementation that they don't want to have control
> over, but leave it to their benevolent privileged contributors.
>
> I trust this helps.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
>
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Sharan Foga <sharan.foga@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Charl
>>
>> I'm not a developer – so I hope that others will also respond on this with
>> their opinions too.
>>
>> My thoughts are that you do have the option of basing your POC on either
>> of our two branches. Our branches are for the use of developers because it
>> sounds like you are going to do some changes. I also think that a lot of
>> developers base their work on our branches rather than the release itself.
>>
>> The 14.12 branch was created in December 2014 and contains new features
>> not present in 13.07. We have backported bug fixes to it, so it has been
>> maturing and stabilising for over 18 months and would have been our next
>> release. Also recent OFBiz fork announced this mailing list is based on our
>> 14.12 branch.
>>
>> Our 15.12 branch was created in December 2015 and once again includes new
>> features not present in 14.12 and any bug fixes. This has been maturing and
>> stabilising for 6 months.
>>
>> I think it is all about risk. Depending on what you want to achieve with
>> your POC, then I suspect that you could still possibly go ahead using 14.12
>> instead of 13.07 if you wanted to, so perhaps take a look at the
>> differences between 14.12 and 13.07 to see if it affects what you were
>> wanting to do.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>>
>> On 2016-07-01 15:15 (+0200), Charl Bouwer <zarachnia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Where does it leave a new user that is planning to become a contributor.
>> I
>>> am past the R&D stage and meeting my business partner next week to inform
>>> him I already have 2 possibly 3 clients that is interested in a POC. In
>> the
>>> next month I am building a POC based on the 13.07 build.
>>>
>>> I was already able to setup eclipse with debugging enabled and have both
>>> the trunk and 13.07 SVN repositories. I am busy doing the same with
>>> Intellij/GIT setup, my preferred IDE environment. I am planning to use
>> the
>>> POC to customise for my region, including the initial seed data. Which in
>>> turn will lead to me working on the multi tenancy aspect.
>>>
>>> Should I continue with 13.07 as base with the intention to have a
>>> production server in the next say 3-6 months.
>>> Any suggestions on how I should proceed from here?
>>>
>>> Sorry I only subscribed to the dev-list today
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Charl
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Sharan Foga <sharan.foga@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Pierre
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy summarise what my understanding is, but beforehand I'd
>> like
>>>> to point out that any decision on this discussion thread isn't “the
>> shared
>>>> conclusion of the PMC”. The discussion was raised on this list
>> specifically
>>>> to get feedback from our community and it's from that feedback that any
>>>> conclusions are drawn or decisions taken .
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that there was general consensus for the following:
>>>>
>>>> - There would be no more releases from 13.07 so the current release
>> that
>>>> is out would be the last one in that series
>>>>
>>>> - We would not backport any of the gradle changes into the 14.12. or
>> 15.12
>>>> branches because it would cause instability
>>>>
>>>> - We would leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches as they are now
>>>> (and not make them into releases as to do that we would need to remove
>> all
>>>> the jar files and this would create instability).
>>>>
>>>> - We would focus on implementing the gradle changes into the trunk and
>>>> then creating and stabilising a 16.x release ASAP
>>>>
>>>> - The benefits for our community are that developers and service
>> providers
>>>> will still have access to the complete codebase for 14.12 and 15.12
>>>> including the special purpose components to be able to support their
>> client
>>>> base.
>>>>
>>>> I suggested taking the discussion to the development list so that we
>> can
>>>> talk in more detail about the release planning and also the duration of
>>>> support the unreleased branches. This again, will be a community
>> discussion
>>>> and decision. Once we have these details we can communicate them to our
>>>> user community.
>>>>
>>>> This was my understanding, so if anyone has a another interpretation or
>>>> understanding then please feel free to comment.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-30 15:40 (+0200), Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> It seems to me that Sharan is jumping the fence a bit to soon.
>> Multiple
>>>>> suggestions have gathered support.
>>>>> This makes any 'this solution', without repeating what that solution
>> is ,
>>>>> multi-interpretable and would not only continue the discussion. But
>> also
>>>>> the confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest to repeat once more what the shared conclusion of the PMC
>> is
>>>>> regarding this discussion, so that the entire community can
>> anticipate to
>>>>> what is coming in the near future, and what the PMC will take to the
>> dev
>>>> ml
>>>>> for planning purposes regarding the short term actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>>>>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>>>>
>>>>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Sharan Foga <sharan.foga@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks very much for the feedback. I'm glad that this solution will
>>>>>> resolve our current problems without taking away any functionality
>>>> from the
>>>>>> service providers or developers that are using the unreleased
>> branches.
>>>>>> Our next step will be to create and stabilise the 16.x release
>> ASAP so
>>>>>> that our user community will have another release available. This
>> will
>>>>>> become our top priority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that we close off the discussion now as I think we've had
>>>> quite
>>>>>> a detailed discussion and it looks like we have come to a
>> consensus and
>>>>>> resolved the issues. We can now take the discussion back to the dev
>>>> list
>>>>>> where we can talk about the timings, release roadmap and also the
>>>> support
>>>>>> timeframe for the unreleased branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-06-30 11:01 (+0200), Michael Brohl <
>> michael.brohl@ecomify.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Great idea, +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Brohl
>>>>>>> ecomify GmbH
>>>>>>> www.ecomify.de
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 30.06.16 um 09:05 schrieb Sharan Foga:
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response -Jacopo. (You posted a minute before
I
>>>> did!)
>>>>>>>> Anyway I think that I might have an idea that could solve
our
>>>> problem
>>>>>> – let's just leave 14.12 and 15.12 as unreleased branches.
>>>>>>>> The jar issue is only an issue if we want to convert the
>> unreleased
>>>>>> branches into a release. Unreleased they can contain the jar files
>> and
>>>> the
>>>>>> special purpose components etc – but if we want to release
them
>> then
>>>> we
>>>>>> need to fix the jar file problem before it can be released.
>>>>>>>> Christian mentions that people are using the unreleased
>> branches,
>>>> so
>>>>>> by leaving them unreleased, we are actually giving our users
>> something
>>>> that
>>>>>> can help them move from 13.07.
>>>>>>>> So I suggest that we seriously consider leaving 14.12 and
>> 15.12 as
>>>>>> unreleased branches.
>>>>>>>> For the next point – I think our next release should
be the
>> 16.x
>>>> –
>>>>>> so that means that we are not backporting any changes and can take
>> a
>>>> branch
>>>>>> directly from the trunk once the gradle changes have been applied.
>>>>>>>> Comments anyone?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Sharan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-30 07:25 (+0200), Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Christian Geisert <
>>>>>>>>> christian.geisert@isu-gmbh.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> My proposal is to release 14.12 ASAP, after that
dropping
>> 13.07
>>>> and
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> trying to do a release 16.x with Gradle. And a release
of
>> 15.12in
>>>>>>>>>> between wouldn't be bad either ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you Christian.
>>>>>>>>> Your proposal makes sense but the problem is that we
will not
>> be
>>>> able
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> release (14.12, 15.12 etc...) until we have removed all
the
>> jars
>>>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> distribution, and implementing this in the branches will
>> require
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> layout changes that will bring instability: the releases
will
>> be
>>>>>> delayed
>>>>>>>>> regardless and if we want to implement two different
>> mechanisms
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> downloading the jars for 14.12 vs the trunk and 16.x
etc...
>> than
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> codebases will become rather different and more difficult
to
>>>>>> maintain; and
>>>>>>>>> the extra effort will have to be backed up by the interested
>>>> users.
>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>>> to consider these aspects and do a reality check on resources
>>>> before
>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>> in any direction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message