Short term plans for official releases

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi to all contributors.

With this email I just want to check if we are interested in issuing one or more official releases soon (this or next month).
If we are, I will be more than happy to support the process as usual.

Here is what we could release:

* the first "stable" release of the 11.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 11.04"; (the code freeze was done in April 2011)
* the first "bug fix" release of the 10.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 10.04.01"; (the last release, 10.04, was released in January 2011)
* the second "bug fix" release of the 09.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 09.04.02"; (the last release, 09.04.01, was released in January 2011)

Then, as Jacques suggested in another thread, we could (possibly as part of the announce we will do for the release and in the project's download page) clearly mention the release that is no longer "supported" by the community (i.e. 4.0).

Of course, we will do one release at a time and we could prepare a tentative schedule (like one release per month); or simply wait for the releases of some branches.

What do you all think?

Regards,

Jacopo

Reference:

http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jacopo,

Inline...

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hi to all contributors.
>
> With this email I just want to check if we are interested in issuing one or more official releases soon (this or next month).
> If we are, I will be more than happy to support the process as usual.
>
> Here is what we could release:
>
> * the first "stable" release of the 11.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 11.04"; (the code freeze was done in April 2011)
> * the first "bug fix" release of the 10.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 10.04.01"; (the last release, 10.04, was released in
> January 2011)
> * the second "bug fix" release of the 09.04 series (branch): "Apache OFBiz 09.04.02"; (the last release, 09.04.01, was released
> in January 2011)

+1

Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective branches
(or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
freezed. I'd also love to have some feebacks from users, are they using them? Are they interested by them? etc... Anyway not a lot
of work from us ;o)

> Then, as Jacques suggested in another thread, we could (possibly as part of the announce we will do for the release and in the
> project's download page) clearly mention the release that is no longer "supported" by the community (i.e. 4.0).

Yes, that would be great, I have opened the https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan page yesterday for
modification, and was still wondering if we should not put a word about that there in the "General Release Policies" section

 > Of course, we will do one release at a time and we could prepare a tentative schedule (like one release per month); or simply
> wait for the releases of some branches.
>
> What do you all think?

Thanks for your initiative Jacopo!

> Regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> Reference:
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:

On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective branches
> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
> freezed.

This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are published):

http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html

but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the older ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

[jacques.le.roux-2]

Thanks Jacopo,

I had the feeling I was missing something. I plenty agree with your  
suggestions. Could we not had a word on this page about "live"
branches (vs freezed/zipped releases) and a link to repo (vs downloads  
mirrors)? I'm currently in vacation for a week, so I will not
work on this soon...

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like  
>> 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective
>> branches
>> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In  
>> other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
>> freezed.
>
> This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are  
> published):
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>
> but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking  
> to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the older
> ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Jacques, all,

I did a series of changes (rev. 1180638) to the text and formatting of the "Download" page and now it should be easier to understand what to download and how things are structured; I have tried to incorporate your feedback.
When you can, please have a look (and a double look to typos and grammar).

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Thanks Jacopo,
>
> I had the feeling I was missing something. I plenty agree with your suggestions. Could we not had a word on this page about "live"
> branches (vs freezed/zipped releases) and a link to repo (vs downloads mirrors)? I'm currently in vacation for a week, so I will not
> work on this soon...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective
>>> branches
>>> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
>>> freezed.
>>
>> This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are published):
>>
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>
>> but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the older
>> ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Jacopo,

I have just added this sentence to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies

* Because it needs too much work, at some point older releases will not be supported by the community (trunk patches not backported)

I have also noticed this sentence (just before the one I added)

* Each new release tag and pre-built package will be represented by a third position version number change (since February 2009
seems that we will prefer to use the revision number for that)

I like the idea of adding the revision number rather than a third position version number, maybe it's not worth changing now but we
could stick with it for future releases? (It relates to this thead http://markmail.org/message/3xhnpbbmceg5hdg7)


About the download page, looks good to me, some questions:

*Something is not clear to me
<<Apache OFBiz 10.04
This release contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2010 and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes.>>
So it means that the zip is automatically updated from the repo (when changed) and always last revision accessible to mirrors,
right? Same for 09.04.01, I guess?

* Under the Snapshots section, I'd like to add some words about svn repo, trunk and releases branches. Do you think it makes sense
(it's not releases but could interest, make quicker links for developers)

Thanks

Jacques



From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Jacques, all,
>
> I did a series of changes (rev. 1180638) to the text and formatting of the "Download" page and now it should be easier to
> understand what to download and how things are structured; I have tried to incorporate your feedback.
> When you can, please have a look (and a double look to typos and grammar).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jacopo,
>>
>> I had the feeling I was missing something. I plenty agree with your suggestions. Could we not had a word on this page about
>> "live"
>> branches (vs freezed/zipped releases) and a link to repo (vs downloads mirrors)? I'm currently in vacation for a week, so I will
>> not
>> work on this soon...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective
>>>> branches
>>>> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
>>>> freezed.
>>>
>>> This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are published):
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the older
>>> ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Jacques,

On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Jacopo,
>
> I have just added this sentence to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies
>
> * Because it needs too much work, at some point older releases will not be supported by the community (trunk patches not backported)
>
> I have also noticed this sentence (just before the one I added)
>
> * Each new release tag and pre-built package will be represented by a third position version number change (since February 2009 seems that we will prefer to use the revision number for that)
>
> I like the idea of adding the revision number rather than a third position version number, maybe it's not worth changing now but we could stick with it for future releases? (It relates to this thead http://markmail.org/message/3xhnpbbmceg5hdg7)
>

We could, but the release name convention we are using has been already changed too many times (and we ended up with a bad one imo) so my preference would be to postpone any decision to change it another time unless we all want and agree upon  a much better one.

>
> About the download page, looks good to me, some questions:
>
> *Something is not clear to me
> <<Apache OFBiz 10.04
> This release contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2010 and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes.>>
> So it means that the zip is automatically updated from the repo (when changed) and always last revision accessible to mirrors, right? Same for 09.04.01, I guess?

No we cannot do this: all the files from the download page must be official releases (i.e. voted for release by the PMC).
As regards the 10.04, the release date is mentioned in the next sentence:

" It is our current "stable" release, and has been officially released in January 2011".

As regards 09.04.01, the release date is mentione here:

"Apache OFBiz 09.04.01 is the current and latest release of the 09.04 series; it is a bug fix release, issued in January 2011"

>
> * Under the Snapshots section, I'd like to add some words about svn repo, trunk and releases branches. Do you think it makes sense (it's not releases but could interest, make quicker links for developers)

No please, do not add download links etc because all the information if this page should only contain official files; in fact the snapshot section is  already an exception to this rule that for now it is acceptable. But you may add a sentence to point the user to the https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html page... even if we may even want to consider to remove the snapshot section at all from the "download" page, and add a link to the snapshot page from the https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html instead.

Jacopo

>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Jacques, all,
>>
>> I did a series of changes (rev. 1180638) to the text and formatting of the "Download" page and now it should be easier to understand what to download and how things are structured; I have tried to incorporate your feedback.
>> When you can, please have a look (and a double look to typos and grammar).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jacopo,
>>>
>>> I had the feeling I was missing something. I plenty agree with your suggestions. Could we not had a word on this page about "live"
>>> branches (vs freezed/zipped releases) and a link to repo (vs downloads mirrors)? I'm currently in vacation for a week, so I will not
>>> work on this soon...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective
>>>>> branches
>>>>> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases are
>>>>> freezed.
>>>>
>>>> This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are published):
>>>>
>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>
>>>> but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the older
>>>> ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jacopo,

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques,
>
> On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:52 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> I have just added this sentence to
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies
>>
>> * Because it needs too much work, at some point older releases will not be supported by the community (trunk patches not
>> backported)
>>
>> I have also noticed this sentence (just before the one I added)
>>
>> * Each new release tag and pre-built package will be represented by a third position version number change (since February 2009
>> seems that we will prefer to use the revision number for that)
>>
>> I like the idea of adding the revision number rather than a third position version number, maybe it's not worth changing now but
>> we could stick with it for future releases? (It relates to this thead http://markmail.org/message/3xhnpbbmceg5hdg7)
>>
>
> We could, but the release name convention we are using has been already changed too many times (and we ended up with a bad one
> imo) so my preference would be to postpone any decision to change it another time unless we all want and agree upon  a much better
> one.

OK, not a problem with me. The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?

>>
>> About the download page, looks good to me, some questions:
>>
>> *Something is not clear to me
>> <<Apache OFBiz 10.04
>> This release contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2010 and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes.>>
>> So it means that the zip is automatically updated from the repo (when changed) and always last revision accessible to mirrors,
>> right? Same for 09.04.01, I guess?
>
> No we cannot do this: all the files from the download page must be official releases (i.e. voted for release by the PMC).
> As regards the 10.04, the release date is mentioned in the next sentence:
>
> " It is our current "stable" release, and has been officially released in January 2011".
>
> As regards 09.04.01, the release date is mentione here:
>
> "Apache OFBiz 09.04.01 is the current and latest release of the 09.04 series; it is a bug fix release, issued in January 2011"

OK, thanks for clarifying

>> * Under the Snapshots section, I'd like to add some words about svn repo, trunk and releases branches. Do you think it makes
>> sense (it's not releases but could interest, make quicker links for developers)
>
> No please, do not add download links etc because all the information if this page should only contain official files; in fact the
> snapshot section is  already an exception to this rule that for now it is acceptable. But you may add a sentence to point the user
> to the https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html page... even if we may even want to consider to
> remove the snapshot section at all from the "download" page, and add a link to the snapshot page from the
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html instead.

Then, I think the https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html page is clear enough. I'd not move the
snapshot section except if it really hurts someone there? Mmm though.... maybe it would remove some confusion for end users...
Opinions, before we close this thread?

Jacques

> Jacopo
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Jacques, all,
>>>
>>> I did a series of changes (rev. 1180638) to the text and formatting of the "Download" page and now it should be easier to
>>> understand what to download and how things are structured; I have tried to incorporate your feedback.
>>> When you can, please have a look (and a double look to typos and grammar).
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> I had the feeling I was missing something. I plenty agree with your suggestions. Could we not had a word on this page about
>>>> "live"
>>>> branches (vs freezed/zipped releases) and a link to repo (vs downloads mirrors)? I'm currently in vacation for a week, so I
>>>> will not
>>>> work on this soon...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Thank you Jacques, please see my note below:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should make more clear somewhere that releases like 10.04.01 or 09.04.02 are only tagged revisions in respective
>>>>>> branches
>>>>>> (or did I miss some places where this is clearly explained?). In other words only branches are still evolving when releases
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> freezed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is explainedin the official download page (where releases are published):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> but of course we could improve the information there; I was thinking to better separate the latest release 10.04 from the
>>>>> older
>>>>> ones and also, inside a series, decrease the fonts of the older releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Jacques,

On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?

It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is greater than 4.
And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...

But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.

Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jacopo,

Maybe we could add an explanation on top of the download page, to make things more clear. From
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies

We could say

<<Release branches are created once per year, so far in April . We use the same release numbering scheme than Ubuntu (for instance,
9.4 means released in 2009.April).>>

Jacques

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques,
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
>> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?
>
> It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
> Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is greater
> than 4.
> And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...
>
> But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Hi Jacques,

it sounds like a good idea; I would like to suppress the mention to Ubuntu and simply describe the naming convention we use.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi Jacopo,
>
> Maybe we could add an explanation on top of the download page, to make things more clear. From https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies
>
> We could say
>
> <<Release branches are created once per year, so far in April . We use the same release numbering scheme than Ubuntu (for instance, 9.4 means released in 2009.April).>>
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
>>> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?
>>
>> It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
>> Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is greater than 4.
>> And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...
>>
>> But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Jacopo,

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> Hi Jacques,
>
> it sounds like a good idea; I would like to suppress the mention to Ubuntu and simply describe the naming convention we use.

Yes sure, it's ok with me

Thanks

Jacques

> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi Jacopo,
>>
>> Maybe we could add an explanation on top of the download page, to make things more clear. From
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies
>>
>> We could say
>>
>> <<Release branches are created once per year, so far in April . We use the same release numbering scheme than Ubuntu (for
>> instance, 9.4 means released in 2009.April).>>
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
>>>> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?
>>>
>>> It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
>>> Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is
>>> greater than 4.
>>> And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...
>>>
>>> But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Done at r1187511

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> Jacopo,
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> it sounds like a good idea; I would like to suppress the mention to Ubuntu and simply describe the naming convention we use.
>
> Yes sure, it's ok with me
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> Maybe we could add an explanation on top of the download page, to make things more clear. From
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan#ReleasePlan-GeneralReleasePolicies
>>>
>>> We could say
>>>
>>> <<Release branches are created once per year, so far in April . We use the same release numbering scheme than Ubuntu (for
>>> instance, 9.4 means released in 2009.April).>>
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The same (than Bruno) was also asked later by Ruth later (in another thread) BTW...
>>>>> What don't you like in the release name convention? The Ubuntu way?
>>>>
>>>> It is not a big deal but, since we have very few releases an old traditional sequence would have worked fine imo.
>>>> Now we have 09.04 but people are confused because they may think there is also a 09.03 or it is not obvious that 09.04 is
>>>> greater than 4.
>>>> And last point, it is not that clear that 09.04 means 2009.04...
>>>>
>>>> But at this point it is fine and imo having one convention and sticking to it is much better than changing it.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>
>>