Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:

* the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
* every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
* from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
* no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)

An outstanding topic is the following:
* do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?

I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.

As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
* created in April
* first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
* second year: two releases 01 and 02
* third year: two releases 03 and 04
* fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed

If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:

C: new release on February and August
B: new release on March and September
A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)

For example:

2015
Jan
Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
Mar B3
Apr A5 (last); D is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug C2
Sep B4
Oct
Nov
Dec

2016
Jan
Feb D1
Mar C3
Apr B5 (last); E is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug D2
Sep C4
Oct
Nov
Dec

2016
Jan
Feb E1
Mar D3
Apr C5 (last); F is created
May
Jun
Jul
Aug E2
Sep D4
Oct
Nov
Dec

etc...

Kind regards

Jacopo

[Adrian Crum-3]

This is a good summary of the discussions.

I'm not clear on what "officialize" means. I would prefer to have this
release roadmap considered as a general outline, and not something cast
in stone. My concern is that it will be taken too literally and future
efforts to vary the release schedule will be met with resistance because
they don't fit in with the "officialized" road map. In other words, I'm
okay with the proposed roadmap, as long as there is some "wiggle room"
to do things differently now and then should the need arise.

-Adrian


  On 2/26/2012 3:29 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:
>
> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa>  where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>
> An outstanding topic is the following:
> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>
> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>
> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
> * created in April
> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>
> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>
> C: new release on February and August
> B: new release on March and September
> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
>
> For example:
>
> 2015
> Jan
> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
> Mar B3
> Apr A5 (last); D is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug C2
> Sep B4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb D1
> Mar C3
> Apr B5 (last); E is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug D2
> Sep C4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb E1
> Mar D3
> Apr C5 (last); F is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug E2
> Sep D4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> etc...
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jacopo
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Thank you Adrian,

I agree with you and should not have used the word "official" because it is misleading; let's simply say that there is consensus in the dev list to attempt to stick to this plan; of course we will review it over time and change it if required, or maybe simply ignore it if it will not prove to be useful over time.

Jacopo


On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> This is a good summary of the discussions.
>
> I'm not clear on what "officialize" means. I would prefer to have this release roadmap considered as a general outline, and not something cast in stone. My concern is that it will be taken too literally and future efforts to vary the release schedule will be met with resistance because they don't fit in with the "officialized" road map. In other words, I'm okay with the proposed roadmap, as long as there is some "wiggle room" to do things differently now and then should the need arise.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> On 2/26/2012 3:29 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize them and then stick to this plan:
>>
>> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
>> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a release)
>> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be YY.MM.<aa>  where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
>> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>>
>> An outstanding topic is the following:
>> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>>
>> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>>
>> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release branch:
>> * created in April
>> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
>> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
>> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
>> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>>
>> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>>
>> C: new release on February and August
>> B: new release on March and September
>> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 2015
>> Jan
>> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
>> Mar B3
>> Apr A5 (last); D is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug C2
>> Sep B4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> 2016
>> Jan
>> Feb D1
>> Mar C3
>> Apr B5 (last); E is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug D2
>> Sep C4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> 2016
>> Jan
>> Feb E1
>> Mar D3
>> Apr C5 (last); F is created
>> May
>> Jun
>> Jul
>> Aug E2
>> Sep D4
>> Oct
>> Nov
>> Dec
>>
>> etc...
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Jacopo
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

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

> We have recently discussed in a few threads some strategies for the definition of a release roadmap for OFBiz; I am summarizing
> here the main points (old and new) because there seems to be a general agreement around them and we should be ready to officialize
> them and then stick to this plan:
>
> * the release roadmap will be time-based rather than feature-based
> * every year a new release branch is created on April, generating a new Major Release Number in the format YY.MM (this is *not* a
> release)
> * from each active release branch we will release 2 releases every year (approx every 6 months); the names of the releases will be
> YY.MM.<aa> where aa is a two digits sequential number (01 is the first release, 02 the second etc..)
> * no more than 3 active release branches will be maintained simultaneously; for this reason we will close the oldest release
> branch every year sometimes before April (when the new one is created)
>
> An outstanding topic is the following:
> * do we still want to wait approx 1 year before releasing the first release of a branch?
>
> I don't have a strong preference but maybe a stabilization period of 6 months could be enough... but I don't know. In the plan
> below I am proposing a stabilization period of 10 months.
>
> As a result of the above rules, we will release approx 5 releases per year considering the following lifecycle of a release
> branch:
> * created in April
> * first year: stabilization; no new releases are created
> * second year: two releases 01 and 02
> * third year: two releases 03 and 04
> * fourth year: one release 05 and then the branch is closed
>
> If we name A (oldest), B and C (newest) the three active release branches, then we could stick to the following roadmap:
>
> C: new release on February and August
> B: new release on March and September
> A: new (last) release on April and then closed (when on April the new branch D is created)

For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so
often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)

Jacques

> For example:
>
> 2015
> Jan
> Feb C1 (after mostly 10 months of stabilization)
> Mar B3
> Apr A5 (last); D is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug C2
> Sep B4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb D1
> Mar C3
> Apr B5 (last); E is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug D2
> Sep C4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> 2016
> Jan
> Feb E1
> Mar D3
> Apr C5 (last); F is created
> May
> Jun
> Jul
> Aug E2
> Sep D4
> Oct
> Nov
> Dec
>
> etc...
>
> Kind regards
>
> Jacopo
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)

It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.

Jacopo

>
> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release
>> so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>
> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only
> trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.

Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way
(less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...

Jacques

> Jacopo
>
>>
>> Jacques
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:

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

Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.

Jacopo

On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>
>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>
> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>
> Jacques
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>

[hans_bakker]

This looks pretty good Jacopo,

congratulations.

However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.

Regards,
Hans

On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>
> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Thank you Hans,

the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
For the trunk all the information is here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html

(but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").

Jacopo

On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>
> congratulations.
>
> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>
>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Jacopo,

Thanks for the good work.

Minor: I have added normally in "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April". Just in case we have suddenly
to change our convention regarding the date (I see no reasons but why not)

For demo mainteners information:
======================
This morning, I have checked and adjusted all the scripts for trunk changes:
automatically used each day: check-svn-update.sh
convenient ones I created for manual tasks : manual.sh, trunk-manual.sh, stable-manual.sh

At some point we were running a buggy version of the JDK and then switched to jdk1.6.0_23 in our startofbiz.sh
files:
    # temporary fix for a bug in Hot-Spot before jdk1.6.0_22(b09)
    JAVA="/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sunjdk/jdk1.6.0_23/bin/java"
I forgot that when I switched to ant start-batch in trunk but fortunately we no longer need to worry since infra provides now by
default /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.26


Some questions to the community:
=======================
R10.04 is now our stable branch and we have decided to no longer support releases under our current stable. Since we have enough
resources, some time ago, I had suggested to run in demo not only the trunk and stable but also the previous release (would be at
the moment R09.04). Christian has done the work for that (thanks Christian!). But now, because of our new policy regarding releases,
I would like to ask the community if we should run 3 (trunk, stable, older) or only 2 demos?

We are curently still running R09.04 as our stable demo. I saw that someone has done the work to be able to run R10.04
(demo-branch10.4-setup.diff, not sure if it has been applied?). Is it not the time to switch to it as our stable?

Also, since we now we have some RTL users and our default Theme Tomahawk does not allow them to use their prefered or mother tongue
language. I'd like to ask the community if they would not like to change for Flat-Grey? An alternative would be to keep Tomahawk as
default and put a word about that in footer, but it's less convenient...

Jacques

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

> Thank you Hans,
>
> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
> For the trunk all the information is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>
>> congratulations.
>>
>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of
>>>> way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 7, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Minor: I have added normally in "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April". Just in case we have suddenly
> to change our convention regarding the date (I see no reasons but why not)

Thank you

Jacopo

[hans_bakker]

But Apache does not prohibit it?

you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?

I still think this is wrong not to mention it.

Hans

On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Thank you Hans,
>
> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
> For the trunk all the information is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>
> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>
>> congratulations.
>>
>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> But Apache does not prohibit it?

Not in itself: but it is wrong and against the ASF policies to push the users to use unofficial versions like you are often doing (ignoring your responsibilities as a PMC member) and adding a link from that page helps in this direction. This is why I am against this.

>
> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?

I guess that you forgot to add a smiley to the above sentence... but no, I am simply working to help OFBiz be a project inline with the directions of the ASF.
But talking about schools, I also have something to say to you: study more, read more, understand more, improve the quality of the work you contribute (that is still surprisingly low after all these years) and be grateful and respectful to the ASF, to the OFBiz project and to the fortune that made you a committer and PMC of this important open source project.

Jacopo

>
> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Thank you Hans,
>>
>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>
>>> congratulations.
>>>
>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>
>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?

Jacques

From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>

> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>
> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>
> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>
> Hans
>
> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Thank you Hans,
>>
>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>
>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>
>>> congratulations.
>>>
>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>
>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of
>>>>> way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>

[hans_bakker]

Jacopo, thank you for your compliments,

However times are changing and continuous testing  and  continuous
deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a
nightmare....

Regards,
Hans

On 04/07/2012 03:48 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
> Not in itself: but it is wrong and against the ASF policies to push the users to use unofficial versions like you are often doing (ignoring your responsibilities as a PMC member) and adding a link from that page helps in this direction. This is why I am against this.
>
>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
> I guess that you forgot to add a smiley to the above sentence... but no, I am simply working to help OFBiz be a project inline with the directions of the ASF.
> But talking about schools, I also have something to say to you: study more, read more, understand more, improve the quality of the work you contribute (that is still surprisingly low after all these years) and be grateful and respectful to the ASF, to the OFBiz project and to the fortune that made you a committer and PMC of this important open source project.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>
>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

This is not consensus, it is a compromise.

What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious) and what is the text that you would like to add there?

Jacopo

On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>
>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>
>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>
>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>
>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>
>>>> congratulations.
>>>>
>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> However times are changing and continuous testing  and  continuous deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a nightmare....

Yeah, hopefully this will happen soon and at that point I am pretty sure that the ASF will adjust its policies accordingly.

Jacopo

[hans_bakker]

As the Apache policies are not against it, I ask you to re-add the trunk
link to the download page in order not to block the future where
everybody will use the trunk in a continuous testing and continuous
deploying environment avoiding the 'approved releases' upgrade nightmare

Hans

On 04/07/2012 04:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> However times are changing and continuous testing  and  continuous deploying will take over 'approved' releases where upgrading is a nightmare....
> Yeah, hopefully this will happen soon and at that point I am pretty sure that the ASF will adjust its policies accordingly.
>
> Jacopo

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.

Right

> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)

To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users

>and what is the text that you would like to add there?

<<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out
the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because
trunk is really not that bleeding edge...

Jacques

> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>
>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>
>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>
>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially
>>>> approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>
>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>
>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the
>>>>>> lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to
>>>>>>>>> release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the
>>>>>>>> only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real
>>>>>>>> benefit.
>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change
>>>>>>> of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

I am against this, especially if it comes as an order issued by Hans: he is not in the position of being aggressive or forcing us to do what it pleases him, he doesn't have the skills, the power, the merit to rule us (not to mention me); he did it in the past just because we let him do this.
Now, if you and Hans feel that we should add a sentence about the trunk in the download page, please provide a valid motivation and a valid text, then start a vote: if the community will vote in favor of it I will be happy to accept and implement accordingly; otherwise I will not waste more of my time discussing this just to please Hans.

Jacopo

On Apr 7, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> This is not consensus, it is a compromise.
>
> Right
>
>> What is the purpose of mentioning that we have also a trunk (obvious)
>
> To relax each other positions (is that even English? :o).
> Meant for users for are not acquainted with open source but still potential OFBiz users
>
>> and what is the text that you would like to add there?
>
> <<Beside the releases you could also go the bleeding edge way [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge_technology] and check out the trunk from OFBiz  repository (Subversion)>>
> Depending of the way we prefer to present it, could be also state of art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art] because trunk is really not that bleeding edge...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe, as a consensus, we can put a word about it and not a link?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
>>>> But Apache does not prohibit it?
>>>>
>>>> you want to be the best pupil in the Apache school?
>>>>
>>>> I still think this is wrong not to mention it.
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> Thank you Hans,
>>>>>
>>>>> the download page is intended to end users and we can't include there links to download code that has not been officially approved; this was an issue we had in the past and the ASF asked us to fix the page in the past.
>>>>> For the trunk all the information is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBADMIN/ofbiz-source-repository-and-access.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (but that page will have to be converted to html and become "more official").
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks pretty good Jacopo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> congratulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However no mention of the latest trunk? That should be at least mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2012 11:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> I have now updated the OFBiz download page with a new section containing the tentative release schedule for each release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations, we have now a plan (simple but effective and achievable) and at least users now have a clear vision of the lifespan of the release branch they are using and can plan in advance the migration of their custom instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For me also 6 months seems long enough for the 1st official release. I'm just afraid: will we have not a lot of work to release so often (relases themself, annunciations, site update and especially demos updates)
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway it seems we need to do it, maybe at the expense of other areas we are working on (Jiras, users support, etc.)
>>>>>>>>> It will take time for sure but working on releases should be the main goal of a community within the ASF: a release is the only trusted way to publish the work we do: if we fix a bug but we do not issue a release the users will not get real benefit.
>>>>>>>> Sounds logical and good to me. It's time to go ahead regarding our way of doing releases. Some time ago, due to our change of way (less using trunk), I was afraid that committers activity would be lower, but it seems to be steady up... so far...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>