This question has come up in the last few IRC meetings, but we need a broader consensus: Should development of 3.4 be officially ended? If so, how should this be handled? Discussion in today's IRC meeting brought up the question of whether it should be "killed" or merely "orphaned." I would appreciate some explanation from both sides about the definition of those choices so we can proceed to an informal vote. -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org
Greetings,
Should development of 3.4 be officially ended?
Yes. It was suggested that it was defacto-orphaned already in the meeting as well.
If so, how should this be handled? Discussion in today's IRC meeting brought up the question of whether it should be "killed" or merely "orphaned." I would appreciate some explanation from both sides about the definition of those choices so we can proceed to an informal vote.
3.4.0 was released April 22, 2011. Given our 6 month cycle, I would suggest that every version only gets 1 year of bug fixes (not a hard limit, but generally) and 2 years of use before "killed". This means an announcement is made saying that "This version has reached the end of its bug fix period, upgrading is recommended to correct problems" after 1 year, and another announcement is made saying "This version is no longer supported, upgrades are required to correct problems" after 2 years. This is a combination, in that it is merely orphaned now (after the fact -- April 22, 2012), but officially killed April 22, 2013. The differences lie mostly in the announcement and the fact that one is recognized to be in use while no patches are done (orphaned), while the other's use is actively frowned upon in the first place and frequently accompanied by suggestions to upgrade (killed). I think this also addresses another concern that was raised in the lists somewhere about constantly having to upgrade every single year and worrying about "Oops! We missed an upgrade! Can we still upgrade?" GPML, Mark Tompsett
Le 18/07/2012 17:41, Mark Tompsett a écrit :
Greetings,
Should development of 3.4 be officially ended?
Yes. It was suggested that it was defacto-orphaned already in the meeting as well. This is a combination, in that it is merely orphaned now (after the fact -- April 22, 2012), but officially killed April 22, 2013. The differences lie mostly in the announcement and the fact that one is recognized to be in use while no patches are done (orphaned), while the other's use is actively frowned upon in the first place and frequently accompanied by suggestions to upgrade (killed). Well, if no-one fix anything on this version, what will be the difference between orphan and killed ? I think as long as there is no RMaint for 3.4, it's EOL, whatever we can decide ! if someone want to keep it updated, then apply to be 3.4 RMaint !
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Greetings, [snip] I wrote:
This is a combination, in that it is merely orphaned now (after the fact -- April 22, 2012), but officially killed April 22, 2013. The differences lie mostly in the announcement and the fact that one is recognized to be in use while no patches are done (orphaned), while the other's use is actively frowned upon in the first place and frequently accompanied by suggestions to upgrade (killed).
Paul P asked and replied:
Well, if no-one fix anything on this version, what will be the difference between orphan and killed ? I think as long as there is no RMaint for 3.4, it's EOL, whatever we can decide ! if someone want to keep it updated, then apply to be 3.4 RMaint !
Yes, effectively EOL is EOL regardless of what we name it. However, the naming difference does distinguish our attitude towards it. 'Orphaned' would mean we can expect people to still be using it. It's for stragglers who haven't caught up version-wise. 'Killed' means we don't want people using that version anymore. We won't support them. They should have upgraded by now. A much harsher attitude. I don't believe we can expect libraries to upgrade every year, despite the 6 month cycle making it a good idea. 'Orphaned' deals with setting our expectations and trying to be considerate of the realities out there. What does that mean for Koha Developers? Nothing, "Orphaned" = "Killed" = "EOL". They'll be spending their time on the latest stable releases (eg. 3.8.3 and 3.6.7). What does it mean for Koha Users? They don't have to feel locked in, because of our 6 month release schedule. They have a year breathing room. It will cost half as much annually to upgrade, because they'll be slack and upgrade every two years (unless a major bug comes along and they don't have the budget to get it fixed). GPML, Mark Tompsett
Hello. Well, if no-one fix anything on this version, what will be the
difference between orphan and killed ? I think as long as there is no RMaint for 3.4, it's EOL, whatever we can decide ! if someone want to keep it updated, then apply to be 3.4 RMaint !
Yes, effectively EOL is EOL regardless of what we name it. However, the naming difference does distinguish our attitude towards it. 'Orphaned' would mean we can expect people to still be using it. It's for stragglers who haven't caught up version-wise. 'Killed' means we don't want people using that version anymore. We won't support them. They should have upgraded by now. A much harsher attitude.
If Koha 3.4 is working for a library, by all means they should continue using it (but upgrade to the latest 3.4.x version, since there were some security issues that were fixed!). However, if someone wants support from me, they need to use a version of Koha that is recent enough that I remember how it works. So I don't really see a difference between "killed" and "orphaned." What does that mean for Koha Developers? Nothing, "Orphaned" = "Killed" =
"EOL". They'll be spending their time on the latest stable releases (eg. 3.8.3 and 3.6.7). What does it mean for Koha Users? They don't have to feel locked in, because of our 6 month release schedule. They have a year breathing room. It will cost half as much annually to upgrade, because they'll be slack and upgrade every two years (unless a major bug comes along and they don't have the budget to get it fixed).
Why don't we just say "3.4.x is End of Life and no longer supported" and leave it at that? Killed or orphaned, I'm not taking up RMaint duties for that branch, and as the RMaint for 3.6.x I think I'd probably be considered the most likely candidate for that position, in the absence of anyone who actually wants to spend time on maintaining the 3.4.x branch. When someone asks for help with 3.4.x, or even 3.6.0 on #koha, we will always recommend they upgrade to a more recent version, because that's just good practice. We fix lots of bugs every month. Regards, Jared -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
Jared asked:
Why don't we just say "3.4.x is End of Life and no longer supported" and leave it at that?
Because if someone has enough money and wants to adopt it, they can. I doubt they will (I think only 2.2 has continued much after the community abandoned it and then not in a very organised way) but it leaves the door open. It should also encourage RMaints to actually post a Request For Adoption notice / Orphan warning promptly, rather than our July meeting being told that some developers thought it was abandoned in April. I think there was no big announcement of that... or I missed it because of other announcements in April and my shortage of time but http://koha-community.org/download/ says "the previous releases still being supported are 3.4 and 3.6." So let's make it less scary for the RMaint to bow out neatly, right? I expect most community members will strongly advise users to upgrade, but this isn't feudal software where the copyright holder can kill it off and we shouldn't make it appear that it is. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
MJ,
Because if someone has enough money and wants to adopt it, they can. I doubt they will (I think only 2.2 has continued much after the community abandoned it and then not in a very organised way) but it leaves the door open.
Fair enough. It should also encourage RMaints to actually post a Request For
Adoption notice / Orphan warning promptly, rather than our July meeting being told that some developers thought it was abandoned in April. I think there was no big announcement of that... or I missed it because of other announcements in April and my shortage of time but http://koha-community.org/download/ says "the previous releases still being supported are 3.4 and 3.6." So let's make it less scary for the RMaint to bow out neatly, right?
If anyone is interested in adopting 3.4, they are hereby requested to do so as there is no current RMaint for the 3.4.x branch. Regards, Jared -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
participants (5)
-
Jared Camins-Esakov -
Mark Tompsett -
MJ Ray -
Owen Leonard -
Paul Poulain