[Vtigercrm-developers] 4.2.4 where to start?

Thu Feb 2 07:00:10 PST 2006

richie, richie, richie, the fact that 4.2.x absolutely need a
mantainer, doesn't mean that this mantainer should be vtiger core
developers.

please, delegate as much as possible, this is one of the core lessons of OSS.

in fact, I would name Matt the official vtiger 4.2.x mantainer, and
let him decide when release things, while the vtiger core developers
keep cooking V5...

and last but not least, *don't expect* that a 4.2.4 release will kill
the problem, 4.2.x will need MORE releases, wanted or not, so 4.2.x
need a COMMITED mantainer, ready to crank releases for many months...

and it seems to me, that Matt is very capable to do that...

/sak

On 2/2/06, Richie <richie at vtiger.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I stand corrected. I was munching on the logic
> hence the delay in replying.
> We will come up with a Patch4 to solve the issues.
>
> Tell me what would the release naming ought to be before
> I screw up
> yet again. JeffK, JLee, Matt ...? This is the time to
> get the KO punch in!
>
> Well, I honestly did not expect to have a patch4 so
> we went ahead
> with the 5.0 development. There was no other intention. I
> guess,
> the lack of foresight in itself is a flaw so I
> take the blame for it.
> On a lighter vein, this is the first time some
> aristocrat made so much
> noise!
>
> Coming to brasstacks, Matt, thanks for the faith.
> I am trying to get things done as fast as possible.
> Kindly be patient in the
> meantime.
>
> We do need help in the following areas and will be glad
> to have some help
>
>
> Trac and SVN combo. (I still do not know either of
> these and what/how is the advantage by using the combo. We
> will provide the machine for these if need be. I guess, Mike/Matt can make a
> call whether we can use the forge machine for these purposes. An immediate
> response will be appreciated so that I can start finding the resources here)
> Forge
>
> I guess, once all these are setup nice and proper, we can have some real
> good developments for all to see and I can take some breathers here.
>
> Richie
>
>
>
> ----mmbrich at fosslabs.com wrote ----
>
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 21:43 -0800, Richie wrote:
>
> > a) Let us hold our head above water for sometime
> more and wait for 5.0 to be
> > out. I do not expect that 5.0 will take till summer to
> stabilize. I do expect that it
> > will take at the max April to be out as of today. We
> are not going to pump
> > in any great features as we used to do earlier. So,
> that is a saving!
> >
> Are you serious?   How can we leave such a lame duck
> out there?  Call me
> old-school but I think 5.x should be halted until 4.x is fixed and
> stable enough to keep people off your back while you
> work on 5.x.
>
>
> > b)   The amount of effort going on to give patch4
> is not small and I feel
> > it is better to fix things on a case by case basis. I
> am trying here to make
> > things simpler and should have a plan by the end of
> the day. We can take
> > the fixes that we have put into the Dev3 release
> and integrate on top of
> > the 4.2.3 release or vice-versa. That should solve most
> of the issues. However,
> > I need to check the effort-estimate here.
> >
> That's fine, in this case I think considered cases
> should be any
> critical, showstopper or major bugs.  As far as
> merging forward to
> something that has more bugs fixed than 4.2.3, great!  Not
> many people
> wanted to start with our code base, which is fine, that
> was mostly a
> band-aide and we would have lost all the tracking
> info that should be in
> the SCM system right now.  Anything that can be
> put forward that at
> least gets us a little bit a head of 4.2.3 _and_ has the
> check-in
> information would be great.
>
>
> > Please note, I repeat, all of this is simply because
> we did not intend to
> > release 4.2.4. This, is yet another on-the-run demand
> that we are facing, hence
> > it is painful. I do not deny that we did not follow
> proper industry wide standards
> > but we are willing to learn.
> I don't see how this is an on-the-run demand.
> Downloads have
> skyrocketed, forums posts are exploding, your user base
> is swelling.
> Now they get a lame duck security release and
> all development halts
> while 5.x is being cooked?  I suspect someone spoke up
> about this
> already, had I been paying attention I would have
> made just as much
> noise, only sooner.
>
>
> >  JLee and JeffK have been asking for the
> release namings changes
> > and we are working on those. We have changed the
> release naming as a start,
> > the source code naming was incorrect, I agree and
> proper action will be
> > taken to correct it.
> >
> Thats great because there is very little rhyme or
> reason behind the
> current naming convention and now package maintainers
> are starting to
> speak up.  If we stop these folks from doing what
> they came to do, we
> can kiss a lot of users good-bye.
>
>
> > We are more than okay with having volunteers take
> up responsibility
> > for the release handling, bug fix handling , etc.
> The more hands
> > we have, the better it is.
> >
> I've already said that you can count me in as fully
> accountable for 4.x
> maintenance but I won't maintain this stream if
> it's going to be wrote
> off in favor of 5.x, which will have a breaking-in period
> of at least 3
> months and as long as a year before it passes for
> production use in most
> organizations.
> Some people will jump to 5.x right away, usually these are
> your early
> adopters, but what about the majority of other users
> out there that have
> spent a lot of time/money/both on custom mods or making 4.x
> 'just right'
> for their business?  They don't even have the option of
> a support
> contract through vtiger right now let alone maintaining
> it on their own
> since the base they were depending on to merge
> back and pick fixes up
> from has gone dead.
>
>
> > Finally, I still respect you Matt. There is no 'hate'
> for you anywhere
> > only
> > respect. These are flaws that you pointed out in
> the system.
> > That is only fair.
> >
> I expected this response and this is exactly why I
> don't think this is a
> lost cause that has to fork.  I know we can turn 4.x around
> and save
> everyone who has choose to support 4.x for their customers
> and users
> from having made a bad choice.
>
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> vtigercrm-developers mailing list
> vtigercrm-developers at lists.vtigercrm.com
> http://lists.vtigercrm.com/mailman/listinfo/vtigercrm-developers
>
> _______________________________________________
> vtigercrm-developers mailing list
> vtigercrm-developers at lists.vtigercrm.com
> http://lists.vtigercrm.com/mailman/listinfo/vtigercrm-developers
>
>
>