On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
Is there still a case that would cause pain ?
kf & others proposed an IRC meeting to discuss of this. Is it still needed ?
I would like to see us do something like this:
1. Publish a test branch which implements what Paul has described in full working form, including the ability to demo adding a db update to both 3.6.x and 3.7.x as proof-of-concept. Theory and explanations are nice, but a working demo is proof of the pudding (Englishism here). The patch attached on the bug are almost working. I'll update them, and
Le 23/11/2011 21:01, Chris Nighswonger a écrit : that will be easy to test.
2. Following this, we can conclude our list discussion and/or irc discussion, and go from there. This will also give us an opportunity to submit further improvements/enhancements/etc. which may arise out of testing the proof-of-concept.
Agreed.
I see absolutely no reason to rush this sort of change. My hurry was due to the fact I don't wanted to block bugfixes that have an impact on updatedatabase because of the new updatedb management system is not ready. But after all those discussions, I think the previous 3.6 will be OK even with the new 3.8 one. So I'll probably push those patches as they are (for both master & 3.6.x)
It may be a bit of a pain to some, but it has worked through at least three release cycles. The proposed change does not affect the user in any case. Yes it does: if a customer has sponsored a feature with DB changes, applying the patch to this customer before it's included in official version is a nightmare. And it appends more than once a year for BibLibre.
PS: as i've said on the other thread, i'll work on patches to have something ready to test, in a very close delay. -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08