Koha 2.2.6 = version numbering + Roadmap
Hi, In rel_2_2, kados, hdl and other commited a lot of changes. There is still no changes in the DB, but I think we should call this version 2.4.0 This will reflect 2 importants things : * it has many new features (like amazon images, item creation on serial receipt...) * it may have new bugs. I talked with joshua about this, he agrees. ROADMAP : ========= I planned to release 2.2.6 at end of march. But now, I think we should decide when we freeze the rel_2_2. The question is : does someone have other new features to commit on rel_2_2 or can I declare "feature freeze" and we ONLY commit bugfixes ? -- Paul POULAIN et Henri Damien LAURENT Consultants indépendants en logiciels libres et bibliothéconomie (http://www.koha-fr.org)
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 06:15:50PM +0100, Paul POULAIN wrote:
I planned to release 2.2.6 at end of march. But now, I think we should decide when we freeze the rel_2_2. The question is : does someone have other new features to commit on rel_2_2 or can I declare "feature freeze" and we ONLY commit bugfixes ? Two more features I want to get into this release relate to the MARC editor: subfield repeatability and subfield reordering within a single tag. I can't think of anything else...
Cheers, -- Joshua Ferraro VENDOR SERVICES FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE President, Technology migration, training, maintenance, support LibLime Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS jmf@liblime.com |Full Demos at http://liblime.com/koha |1(888)KohaILS
Hi koha-devel, On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:15:50 +0100 Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:
In rel_2_2, kados, hdl and other commited a lot of changes. There is still no changes in the DB, but I think we should call this version 2.4.0
Concerning CVS, how to do you plan to manage branches and releases? Will you create a new branch rel_2_4 and a release R_2_4_0 on it? Or will you prefer creating a release R_2_4_0 on branch rel_2_2? The former would be cleaner, since we would be able to continue bug fixing on rel_2_2. In my opinion, having a release 2.4.0 on a branch 2.2 is very confusing :-/ Maybe only "rel_2_2" CVS branch name is inappropriate, but we can't change it (CVS can't rename existing branchs). Cheers, -- Pierrick LE GALL INEO media system
Pierrick LE GALL a écrit :
Hi koha-devel,
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:15:50 +0100 Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:
In rel_2_2, kados, hdl and other commited a lot of changes. There is still no changes in the DB, but I think we should call this version 2.4.0
Concerning CVS, how to do you plan to manage branches and releases? Will you create a new branch rel_2_4 and a release R_2_4_0 on it? Or will you prefer creating a release R_2_4_0 on branch rel_2_2?
The former would be cleaner, since we would be able to continue bug fixing on rel_2_2. In my opinion, having a release 2.4.0 on a branch 2.2 is very confusing :-/ Maybe only "rel_2_2" CVS branch name is inappropriate, but we can't change it (CVS can't rename existing branchs).
You're right Pierrick. The only problem being that we have only 1 stable branch. And i'm not sure we have enough strengths to have 2 :-( I announced when releasing 2.2.5 that it would be the last 2.2 with some new features. 2.2.6 was supposed to be bugfix only. Hélas, joshua & chris hacked a lot of things here (why ? I don't know. Maybe it's to introduce new features that can't wait for 3.0), thus my "problem". (The next problem will be to port the improvements to head...) I think we had better stay with rel_2_2 branch code. But i'll tag the 2.4.0 with a 2.4.0 tag. Question to chris & joshua : do you think you'll add new features after 2.4.0 or can you promise you'll work only on HEAD ? ;-) (that would be the best solution, imho) -- Paul POULAIN et Henri Damien LAURENT Consultants indépendants en logiciels libres et bibliothéconomie (http://www.koha-fr.org)
Sorry for my previous mail, I've used the wrong mail account, now it should be good. On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:55:33 +0100 Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:
Hélas, joshua & chris hacked a lot of things here (why ? I don't know. Maybe it's to introduce new features that can't wait for 3.0), thus my "problem". (The next problem will be to port the improvements to head...)
Before joining Koha team, I was wondering how different developers (having each several customers) managed to work on a single stable branch. Obviously, Joshua & Chris needed improvement on branch 2.2 without waiting for branch 3.0. In a "brave new world" each Koha installed "in production" would have its own branch, maintained by several developers. There would be official stable branches (HEAD, 2.2, 2.4, 3.0), official releases (2.2.6, 2.4.0, 3.0.0, 3.0.1), and customer branches (emp-1 based on 2.2.6 level, emp-2 based on 3.0.0 level). (emp stands for Ecole des Mines de Paris). What I describe here is not feasible with CVS. Using a distributed code source management system (GNU Arch, Bazaar NG, darcs) would be the most appropriate solution, but harder to use. A good first step would be to use Subversion (SVN) instead of CVS. SVN make branches management and code modifications report between branches a lot easier (I've migrated from CVS to SVN elsewhere). Quickly discussed on IRC yesterday, I took a look at SVN on Savannah but this service is not available yet :-/ Sorry, my feeling is that I made a fork on Paul's topic! Cheers, -- Pierrick LE GALL INEO media system
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:55:33PM +0100, Paul POULAIN wrote:
I announced when releasing 2.2.5 that it would be the last 2.2 with some new features. 2.2.6 was supposed to be bugfix only. Hélas, joshua & chris hacked a lot of things here (why ? I don't know. Maybe it's to introduce new features that can't wait for 3.0), thus my "problem". In fact, the primary work that chris and I hacked on was in fact a bugfix for the MARC editor, not a new feature. This applies to several other things I've worked on as well.
It's also true that I have added what could be considered 'minor' features to rel_2_2. The main consideration being that the work required in updating a customer with all of the liblime customizations was far exceeding my resources. Creating several new system preferences has enabled me to keep all customers on a stock CVS release rather than maintain my own seperate repository.
(The next problem will be to port the improvements to head...) Of course, I fully intend to port all the improvements I've made to HEAD ...
I think we had better stay with rel_2_2 branch code. But i'll tag the 2.4.0 with a 2.4.0 tag.
Question to chris & joshua : do you think you'll add new features after 2.4.0 or can you promise you'll work only on HEAD ? ;-) I will only work on HEAD, unless a customer requires a bugfix (like they did with the MARC editor).
Cheers, -- Joshua Ferraro VENDOR SERVICES FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE President, Technology migration, training, maintenance, support LibLime Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS jmf@liblime.com |Full Demos at http://liblime.com/koha |1(888)KohaILS
participants (4)
-
Joshua Ferraro -
Paul POULAIN -
Pierrick LE GALL -
Pierrick LE GALL