[geeklog-devel] The road ahead - post 1.5.0

[Michael Jervis]

> Also, I'd say issues that aren't in the bugtracker simply don't exist,
> at least for the long and mid-term strategy. Of course, if an issue is
> easier to fix than to write a bug report for, then it should be fixed
> right away instead.

Yes, if we're going to use that to manage things, then we use that to
manage things. not that plus the mail list archive and forum posts. if
it needs doing, it goes in Mantis.


> Yes. Too bad that Mantis doesn't support voting on bugs yet. Feel free
> to leave comments on the existing issues so we get an idea what's
> considered important (or not).
> Yes. For postponed bugs/features, we could either create new custom
> fields or set the "fixed" drop-down to some future version number and/or
> the bug's status to "suspended". In other words, we'll find a way to
> mark the postponed issues somehow.

I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with Mantis as you, do you want to set
some rules to say this is how we'll mark as must fix in the bug fix
release and this is what goes in the next release release and we'll
all follow them?

> Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see how that would spare us from
> having to release a security update for all 3 1.5.x versions?
>>if we release 1.5.0-1 as a bug fix only release, and we have a
>>security issue, do we have to do 1.5.0sr1 and 1.5.0-1sr1?
>
> 1.5.0-1 would replace 1.5.0 as the baseline release supported, so that
> would only be 1.5.0-1sr1. Been there, done that: 1.3.8, 1.3.8-1,
> 1.3.8-1sr1 ... 1.3.8-1sr4.

Well you say that you support the last two versions, but they are now
1.4.1 and 1.5 and then become 1.5 and 1.6. Then the fixes for 1.5 go
out as 1.5.1 etc instead of 1.5.0-1 and then 1.5.0-2.

Sorry, I'll drop this now. It's just 1.5.0-1, 1.5.0-1sr1 and 1.5.0-2
seem "wrong" to me. I'd rather see them called 1.5.1, 1.5.2 (this was
a security release) and 1.5.3 and have the message that the third
digit is bug fix only, safe to upgrade releases. As safe as the old
"horrible" version numbers. It's just me so I'll drop it.

> I think we should skip the version number 2 to avoid confusion. Nothing
> wrong with 1.10, 1.11, and so on. And then jump right to 3 when we get
> some really great feature ;-)

Ok sounds cool.

> I guess the readers of geeklog-translations were better informed about
> the release plans for 1.5.0 than the readers of this mailing list ;-) In
> other words, I've already tried that.

 Ok.

>>Anyone else want to chime in? Sounds workable to me...
>
> Yep.

Glad it's not just me ;-)

Maybe if we try it, they'll follow if it works, if it goes wrong, they
can only say "I didn't tell you so!" ;-)

Mike