<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body >Hello!<br><br>I stand corrected. I was munching on the logic hence the delay in replying.<br>We will come up with a Patch4 to solve the issues. <br><br>Tell me what would the release naming ought to be before I screw up <br>yet again. JeffK, JLee, Matt ...? This is the time to get the KO punch in!<br><br>Well, I honestly did not expect to have a patch4 so we went ahead<br>with the 5.0 development. There was no other intention. I guess, <br>the lack of foresight in itself is a flaw so I take the blame for it.<br>On a lighter vein, this is the first time some aristocrat made so much <br>noise!<br><br>Coming to brasstacks, Matt, thanks for the faith.<br>I am trying to get things done as fast as possible. Kindly be patient in the <br>meantime.<br><br>We do need help in the following areas and will be glad to have some help<br><br><ul><li>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)</li><li>Forge <br></li></ul><br>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.<br><br>Richie<br><br><br><br>----mmbrich@fosslabs.com wrote ---- <br><br>On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 21:43 -0800, Richie wrote:<br><br>> a) Let us hold our head above water for sometime more and wait for 5.0 to be<br>> out. I do not expect that 5.0 will take till summer to stabilize. I do expect that it<br>> will take at the max April to be out as of today. We are not going to pump <br>> in any great features as we used to do earlier. So, that is a saving! <br>> <br>Are you serious? How can we leave such a lame duck out there? Call me<br>old-school but I think 5.x should be halted until 4.x is fixed and<br>stable enough to keep people off your back while you work on 5.x.<br><br><br>> b) The amount of effort going on to give patch4 is not small and I feel<br>> it is better to fix things on a case by case basis. I am trying here to make<br>> things simpler and should have a plan by the end of the day. We can take<br>> the fixes that we have put into the Dev3 release and integrate on top of<br>> the 4.2.3 release or vice-versa. That should solve most of the issues. However,<br>> I need to check the effort-estimate here.<br>> <br>That's fine, in this case I think considered cases should be any<br>critical, showstopper or major bugs. As far as merging forward to<br>something that has more bugs fixed than 4.2.3, great! Not many people<br>wanted to start with our code base, which is fine, that was mostly a<br>band-aide and we would have lost all the tracking info that should be in<br>the SCM system right now. Anything that can be put forward that at<br>least gets us a little bit a head of 4.2.3 _and_ has the check-in<br>information would be great.<br><br><br>> Please note, I repeat, all of this is simply because we did not intend to<br>> release 4.2.4. This, is yet another on-the-run demand that we are facing, hence<br>> it is painful. I do not deny that we did not follow proper industry wide standards<br>> but we are willing to learn.<br>I don't see how this is an on-the-run demand. Downloads have<br>skyrocketed, forums posts are exploding, your user base is swelling.<br>Now they get a lame duck security release and all development halts<br>while 5.x is being cooked? I suspect someone spoke up about this<br>already, had I been paying attention I would have made just as much<br>noise, only sooner.<br><br><br>> JLee and JeffK have been asking for the release namings changes<br>> and we are working on those. We have changed the release naming as a start,<br>> the source code naming was incorrect, I agree and proper action will be<br>> taken to correct it.<br>> <br>Thats great because there is very little rhyme or reason behind the<br>current naming convention and now package maintainers are starting to<br>speak up. If we stop these folks from doing what they came to do, we<br>can kiss a lot of users good-bye. <br><br><br>> We are more than okay with having volunteers take up responsibility<br>> for the release handling, bug fix handling , etc. The more hands<br>> we have, the better it is. <br>> <br>I've already said that you can count me in as fully accountable for 4.x<br>maintenance but I won't maintain this stream if it's going to be wrote<br>off in favor of 5.x, which will have a breaking-in period of at least 3<br>months and as long as a year before it passes for production use in most<br>organizations.<br>Some people will jump to 5.x right away, usually these are your early<br>adopters, but what about the majority of other users out there that have<br>spent a lot of time/money/both on custom mods or making 4.x 'just right'<br>for their business? They don't even have the option of a support<br>contract through vtiger right now let alone maintaining it on their own<br>since the base they were depending on to merge back and pick fixes up<br>from has gone dead.<br><br><br>> Finally, I still respect you Matt. There is no 'hate' for you anywhere<br>> only<br>> respect. These are flaws that you pointed out in the system.<br>> That is only fair.<br>> <br>I expected this response and this is exactly why I don't think this is a<br>lost cause that has to fork. I know we can turn 4.x around and save<br>everyone who has choose to support 4.x for their customers and users<br>from having made a bad choice.<br><br>Matt<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>vtigercrm-developers mailing list<br>vtigercrm-developers@lists.vtigercrm.com<br>http://lists.vtigercrm.com/mailman/listinfo/vtigercrm-developers<br></body></html>