Developers of Sympa

["Stefan Hornburg (Racke)" <address@concealed>]

On 9/29/18 8:33 AM, IKEDA Soji wrote:
> Marc,
> 
> Yesterday you told you plan to report what caused by defect with
> 6.2.34 in a university.
> 

We are waiting on that report ...

Regards
                      Racke


> My answer is already given: "Who are you saying that?".
> 
> 6.2.34 was preceded by two beta pre-releases.  "The lack of beta
> cycle"?  Ha!  The fact is that you have never joined any tests.
> Don't pass the buck.
> 
> Criticizers may tell anything they want to tell, only if they were
> not or they forgot they are insiders. --- No, Marc, you look exactly
> an uninvolved bystander.
> 
> # Honestly, I have realized some defects of 6.2.34 early in the next
> # day of its release.  But, if it would fuel empty sermon as he
> # wrote, it is vain to propose release of fix.  Furthermore, they might
> # not affect features my users (my company and customsers) were using
> # at that time. ;-/
> 
> 
> In some days I'll write about things I haven't written much: Funding,
> relation with the other organizations especially RENATER, the way of
> development, path to Sympa 7 etc. It may contain some unpleasant
> things for some readers.  I apologyze in advance.
> 
> Though in my mind, I'd not like to waste time by such bubbling...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> -- Soji
> 
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:45:36 +0200
> "Stefan Hornburg (Racke)" <address@concealed> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/26/18 10:37 AM, Marc Chantreux wrote:
>>> hello,
>>>
>>> semantic versioning for sympa7 was acted during the
>>> hackathon but what about the 6.* ?
>>>
>>> * some of us just can't trust the current so called
>>>   stable release because of the lack of beta cycle.
>>>   stability is very important for very large
>>>   organizations using sympa. Soji does a great job
>>>   providing assistance on github but obviously, he
>>>   can't catch every flaws so we need a real beta cycle
>>>   time.
>>> * also those very large organizations cannot afford
>>>   a very to update to every new stable release
>>>   (damn true when instability and regressions are in
>>>   the corner) so i still think we we need to slow
>>>   down the release cycle.
>>> * on the other side, maybe some little sites can
>>>   handle the release pace of 6.2
>>> * the lack of beta cycle is a problem
>>>
>>> i was thinking about a way to improve the situation
>>> with the current release cycle. that's my proposal:
>>>
>>> * Soji moves from 6.2 to 6.3, releasing the pace that
>>>   sounds good for him.
>>> * Whenever something is know up and running fine
>>>   by large sites who want to contribute to beta test
>>>   (universalistes for sure but we can ask for friends
>>>   to jump in...  framalist, unistra, ...), we pick that
>>>   version to become a 6.4.something.
>>> * whenever there is a breaking change, we can increment
>>>   the minor.
>>>
>>> i see avantages:
>>>
>>> * semantic versionning for sympa6 (so newcomers are not
>>>   confused about to )
>>> * let Soji run the pace he wants but trying to avoid
>>>   the problems he can't handle by his own.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> marc
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My two cents:
>>
>> * Soji does do beta releases
>> * There is no point in changing the release cycle until we got really beta 
>> testing
>>
>> Also the very large organisations certainly can support Sympa in terms of 
>> funding, manpower, testing changes etc ...
>>
>> Regards
>>         Racke
>>
>> -- 
>> Ecommerce and Linux consulting + Perl and web application programming.
>> Debian and Sympa administration. Provisioning with Ansible.
> 
> 


-- 
Ecommerce and Linux consulting + Perl and web application programming.
Debian and Sympa administration. Provisioning with Ansible.