[DISCUSSION] R16 and R17: email password issue and releases

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.

It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!

I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to release R18, skipping R17.

Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to R17 and R16 they are welcome

What do you think?

Jacques

[Nicolas Malin-2]

I'm agree with idea to skip the R17 and go directly to R18,

We currently have many improvement and correction, present on R18 and
not R17 that are stable and fully functionnal

Nicolas

On 9/28/19 1:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
> working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>
> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
> there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>
> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start
> to release R18, skipping R17.
>
> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport
> to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Gil Portenseigne]

Hello,

I think that the one year stabilisation period needed for a new branch
to be released is not that far for R18 (less than two month), so I
suppose that skipping R17 to avoid maintaining two release branches is a
good call.

Gil


Le 13:29 - samedi 28 sept., Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>
> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>
> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to release R18, skipping R17.
>
> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacques
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Nicolas and Gil,

Because a release is an important thing, and without other answers than yours, I'll start a vote for that

Jacques


Le 04/10/2019 à 15:27, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> I think that the one year stabilisation period needed for a new branch
> to be released is not that far for R18 (less than two month), so I
> suppose that skipping R17 to avoid maintaining two release branches is a
> good call.
>
> Gil
>
>
> Le 13:29 - samedi 28 sept., Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>
>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>
>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to release R18, skipping R17.
>>
>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacques
>>

[Deepak Dixit-5]

I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll try to
backport this work to R17.
We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17 is in
good shape.

Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life cycle,
release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user perspective
its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.


Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
ofbiz.apache.org


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not working"
> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>
> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there,
> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>
> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to
> release R18, skipping R17.
>
> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to
> R17 and R16 they are welcome
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Deepak,

I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would continue to
maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not demo it and demo R17 as stable, right?

Jacques

Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :

> I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll try to
> backport this work to R17.
> We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17 is in
> good shape.
>
> Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life cycle,
> release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
> perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user perspective
> its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> --
> Deepak Dixit
> ofbiz.apache.org
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not working"
>> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>
>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there,
>> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>
>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to
>> release R18, skipping R17.
>>
>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to
>> R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>

[Deepak Dixit-5]

Yes Jacques,
We can make 16 as old, release R17 as current release (once we officially
released it), start working on R18 to make it ready for release.

Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Deepak,
>
> I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we
> could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would continue
> to
> maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not demo it
> and demo R17 as stable, right?
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
> > I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll try to
> > backport this work to R17.
> > We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17 is in
> > good shape.
> >
> > Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life cycle,
> > release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
> > perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user perspective
> > its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
> >
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > --
> > Deepak Dixit
> > ofbiz.apache.org
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
> working"
> >> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
> >>
> >> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there,
> >> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
> >>
> >> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to
> >> release R18, skipping R17.
> >>
> >> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to
> >> R17 and R16 they are welcome
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

I am also in favor to get the r17 Branch released soon and not skipping it.

Thanks,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 09.10.19 um 11:56 schrieb Deepak Dixit:

> Yes Jacques,
> We can make 16 as old, release R17 as current release (once we officially
> released it), start working on R18 to make it ready for release.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Deepak Dixit
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Deepak,
>>
>> I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we
>> could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would continue
>> to
>> maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not demo it
>> and demo R17 as stable, right?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>>> I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll try to
>>> backport this work to R17.
>>> We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17 is in
>>> good shape.
>>>
>>> Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life cycle,
>>> release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
>>> perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user perspective
>>> its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards
>>> --
>>> Deepak Dixit
>>> ofbiz.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>> working"
>>>> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>>>
>>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned there,
>>>> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start to
>>>> release R18, skipping R17.
>>>>
>>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport to
>>>> R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>

[Michael Brohl-3]

According to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OFBIZ/versions/12338772 there is
not too much to do to get the r17 branch issues solved.

We could start an initiative to check the issues and their relevance,
fix the remaining and and do the release.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 22.01.20 um 12:11 schrieb Michael Brohl:

> I am also in favor to get the r17 Branch released soon and not
> skipping it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 09.10.19 um 11:56 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
>> Yes Jacques,
>> We can make 16 as old, release R17 as current release (once we
>> officially
>> released it), start working on R18 to make it ready for release.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Deepak Dixit
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacques Le Roux
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Deepak,
>>>
>>> I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we
>>> could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would
>>> continue
>>> to
>>> maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not
>>> demo it
>>> and demo R17 as stable, right?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>>>> I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll
>>>> try to
>>>> backport this work to R17.
>>>> We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17
>>>> is in
>>>> good shape.
>>>>
>>>> Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life
>>>> cycle,
>>>> release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
>>>> perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user
>>>> perspective
>>>> its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Deepak Dixit
>>>> ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>>> working"
>>>>> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
>>>>> there,
>>>>> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and
>>>>> start to
>>>>> release R18, skipping R17.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to
>>>>> backport to
>>>>> R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

[Pierre Smits-3]

+1 on skipping r17
+1 on releasing first of r18

According to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OFBIZ?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=unreleased
the r18.12.01 is more ready to be released than r17.12.01.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President*
*Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
*Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:21 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> According to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OFBIZ/versions/12338772 there is
> not too much to do to get the r17 branch issues solved.
>
> We could start an initiative to check the issues and their relevance,
> fix the remaining and and do the release.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 22.01.20 um 12:11 schrieb Michael Brohl:
> > I am also in favor to get the r17 Branch released soon and not
> > skipping it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Brohl
> >
> > ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >
> >
> > Am 09.10.19 um 11:56 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
> >> Yes Jacques,
> >> We can make 16 as old, release R17 as current release (once we
> >> officially
> >> released it), start working on R18 to make it ready for release.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >> Deepak Dixit
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacques Le Roux
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Deepak,
> >>>
> >>> I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we
> >>> could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would
> >>> continue
> >>> to
> >>> maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not
> >>> demo it
> >>> and demo R17 as stable, right?
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
> >>>> I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll
> >>>> try to
> >>>> backport this work to R17.
> >>>> We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17
> >>>> is in
> >>>> good shape.
> >>>>
> >>>> Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life
> >>>> cycle,
> >>>> release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
> >>>> perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user
> >>>> perspective
> >>>> its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks & Regards
> >>>> --
> >>>> Deepak Dixit
> >>>> ofbiz.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> >>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
> >>> working"
> >>>>> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
> >>>>> there,
> >>>>> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and
> >>>>> start to
> >>>>> release R18, skipping R17.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to
> >>>>> backport to
> >>>>> R17 and R16 they are welcome
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi All,

Since we don't have a consensus  about my proposition and I don't see much backporting efforts for about 3 months, I'll start a vote about it

Thanks

Jacques

Le 23/01/2020 à 14:35, Pierre Smits a écrit :

> +1 on skipping r17
> +1 on releasing first of r18
>
> According to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OFBIZ?selectedItem=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin%3Arelease-page&status=unreleased
> the r18.12.01 is more ready to be released than r17.12.01.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President*
> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member*
> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer
> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without privileges)
> since 2008*
> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:21 PM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> According to
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/OFBIZ/versions/12338772 there is
>> not too much to do to get the r17 branch issues solved.
>>
>> We could start an initiative to check the issues and their relevance,
>> fix the remaining and and do the release.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael Brohl
>>
>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>
>>
>> Am 22.01.20 um 12:11 schrieb Michael Brohl:
>>> I am also in favor to get the r17 Branch released soon and not
>>> skipping it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Michael Brohl
>>>
>>> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 09.10.19 um 11:56 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
>>>> Yes Jacques,
>>>> We can make 16 as old, release R17 as current release (once we
>>>> officially
>>>> released it), start working on R18 to make it ready for release.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Deepak Dixit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jacques Le Roux
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Deepak,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problems with that. For demo R16 would stay our stable or we
>>>>> could have it as old but not deprecated for instance? Ie we would
>>>>> continue
>>>>> to
>>>>> maintain R16 (as we currently do as much as possible) it but not
>>>>> demo it
>>>>> and demo R17 as stable, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 09/10/2019 à 08:19, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>>>>>> I think due to one feature/bug skipping R17 is not good idea, I'll
>>>>>> try to
>>>>>> backport this work to R17.
>>>>>> We all are working since long to make R17 stable, and I think R17
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> good shape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making R16 deprecate, I think we need to think about Release life
>>>>>> cycle,
>>>>>> release should have at least 5-7 year of life span. As a developer
>>>>>> perspective it's easy to switch to new branch, but as a user
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> its not easy to switch to new branch frequently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Deepak Dixit
>>>>>> ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:11 PM Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>>>>> working"
>>>>>>> in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
>>>>>>> there,
>>>>>>> it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and
>>>>>>> start to
>>>>>>> release R18, skipping R17.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to
>>>>>>> backport to
>>>>>>> R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>

[Nicolas Malin-2]

Finally I voted to didn't skip the R17 in contradiction with my previous
message for the simple reason to respect the old deprecation code
process and increase the release activity.

For OFBiz integrator this change nothing because mostly use directly the
release branch on git, so the choice must be oriented for end user and
societies that develop some product for official release published.

In the end year we would be publish the R18 and create on the same time
the R20

Nicolas

On 30/09/2019 19:08, Nicolas Malin wrote:

> I'm agree with idea to skip the R17 and go directly to R18,
>
> We currently have many improvement and correction, present on R18 and
> not R17 that are stable and fully functionnal
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 9/28/19 1:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>> working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>
>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
>> there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>
>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start
>> to release R18, skipping R17.
>>
>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport
>> to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Ah OK, It was not clear to me (and to Jacopo I guess), anyway the 1st vote was confusing, thanks for voting again.

I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort necessary to backport to both R17 and R18

About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a R19 before ;)

Then we would have to backport to 3 branches, and sincerely it's more work with Git than it was with Svn where we had scripts for that. I'd maybe
change my mind if OFBIZ-11297 would be done...

Jacques

Le 24/01/2020 à 14:44, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

> Finally I voted to didn't skip the R17 in contradiction with my previous
> message for the simple reason to respect the old deprecation code
> process and increase the release activity.
>
> For OFBiz integrator this change nothing because mostly use directly the
> release branch on git, so the choice must be oriented for end user and
> societies that develop some product for official release published.
>
> In the end year we would be publish the R18 and create on the same time
> the R20
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 30/09/2019 19:08, Nicolas Malin wrote:
>> I'm agree with idea to skip the R17 and go directly to R18,
>>
>> We currently have many improvement and correction, present on R18 and
>> not R17 that are stable and fully functionnal
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 9/28/19 1:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>>> working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>>
>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
>>> there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>>
>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start
>>> to release R18, skipping R17.
>>>
>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport
>>> to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>

[Nicolas Malin-2]

On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ah OK, It was not clear to me (and to Jacopo I guess), anyway the 1st
> vote was confusing, thanks for voting again.
I already done ;)
>
> I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort
> necessary to backport to both R17 and R18
>
> About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a
> R19 before ;)
If we follow the years, 2019 is now behind.
>
> Then we would have to backport to 3 branches, and sincerely it's more
> work with Git than it was with Svn where we had scripts for that. I'd
> maybe change my mind if OFBIZ-11297 would be done...
sure

>
> Jacques
>
> Le 24/01/2020 à 14:44, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>> Finally I voted to didn't skip the R17 in contradiction with my previous
>> message for the simple reason to respect the old deprecation code
>> process and increase the release activity.
>>
>> For OFBiz integrator this change nothing because mostly use directly the
>> release branch on git, so the choice must be oriented for end user and
>> societies that develop some product for official release published.
>>
>> In the end year we would be publish the R18 and create on the same time
>> the R20
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 30/09/2019 19:08, Nicolas Malin wrote:
>>> I'm agree with idea to skip the R17 and go directly to R18,
>>>
>>> We currently have many improvement and correction, present on R18 and
>>> not R17 that are stable and fully functionnal
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>> On 9/28/19 1:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As reported by Rashi Dhagat in OFBIZ-11215 "Email password is not
>>>> working" in R16, and actually nor in R17.
>>>>
>>>> It has been fixed in trunk and R18 with OFBIZ-4361. As mentioned
>>>> there, it's hard to backport to R17 not even speaking about R16!
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if a case like that would not make R16 deprecated and start
>>>> to release R18, skipping R17.
>>>>
>>>> Of course if people has the time, the nerves and the guts to backport
>>>> to R17 and R16 they are welcome
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
> On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort
>> necessary to backport to both R17 and R18
>>
>> About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a
>> R19 before ;)
> If we follow the years, 2019 is now behind.

Actually it's not a set in stone rule, we could still create a R19 branch, why wait one year more, and at least 2 years to publish R20?

Jacques

[Gil Portenseigne]

I wonder if it is bad for the project to have 2 years between two
releases, 16 => 18 => 20

WDYT ?

Gil

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
> > On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
> > > I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort
> > > necessary to backport to both R17 and R18
> > >
> > > About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a
> > > R19 before ;)
> > If we follow the years, 2019 is now behind.
>
> Actually it's not a set in stone rule, we could still create a R19 branch, why wait one year more, and at least 2 years to publish R20?
>
> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

That could be a good idea Gil,

As I just said to Nicolas and Taher, though I'm not sure why (but the tools missing?), I see less backporting since we turned to Git.

Maybe having less branches to backport to would help indeed...

Le 24/01/2020 à 17:36, Gil Portenseigne a écrit :

> I wonder if it is bad for the project to have 2 years between two
> releases, 16 => 18 => 20
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Gil
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>> On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort
>>>> necessary to backport to both R17 and R18
>>>>
>>>> About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a
>>>> R19 before ;)
>>> If we follow the years, 2019 is now behind.
>> Actually it's not a set in stone rule, we could still create a R19 branch, why wait one year more, and at least 2 years to publish R20?
>>
>> Jacques

[Paul Foxworthy-2]

Hi Gil,

Debian releases are approximately two years apart...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history

Cheers

Paul


On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 03:36, Gil Portenseigne <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I wonder if it is bad for the project to have 2 years between two
> releases, 16 => 18 => 20
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Gil
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > Le 24/01/2020 à 15:09, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
> > > On 24/01/2020 14:57, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> > >
> > > > I must say I'm mostly against because of the surplus of effort
> > > > necessary to backport to both R17 and R18
> > > >
> > > > About R20, as Pierre Smits mentioned in Slack should we not create a
> > > > R19 before ;)
> > > If we follow the years, 2019 is now behind.
> >
> > Actually it's not a set in stone rule, we could still create a R19
> branch, why wait one year more, and at least 2 years to publish R20?
> >
> > Jacques
>

--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Australia

Phone: [phone]
Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Email: [hidden email]