I can't update shinken in 1.2 on my production server because
version 1.2 is unstable ( and there lot of bug ). So that why i
think we need more test before final release.
Le 06/09/2012 15:35, Olivier Hanesse a écrit :
I agree with nap
One exception : in the future, with the "2.0" release, AND if
this release is breaking a lot of things (full redesign,
configuration changes etc..), we can maintain a 1.x stable with
Otherwise, I think it is useless.
2012/9/6 nap <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Hartmut
> xkilina wrot in https://github.com/naparuba/shinken/pull/567
>> Well, we should aim to have everything ready by
friday. So come monday
> morning, new users can download 1.2.1 and get
cooking. After that 1.2.2
> for whatever comes out of next week or the two weeks
>> Which is why we need to have the discussion about
stable versus dev.
> Here is my opinion:
> First of all you need to decide whether then
1.2.x-releases should be
> bug-fixes only or also contain other changes.
> After this I recommend having a look at
> learned a lot of it and am using this model for my
projects. I recommend
> using this model (or a slightly adopted version).
It's a really good question. I think such a heavy model is
you have all in-house dev, where you can easily add some
to manage it easily (I remeber about such a shell project on
for managing this model), but will kill participation for
commiters. If I take my example, if I see that there are su
branch on a project, I'll only manage a patch on my side and
to learn all project branch when I will send a pull request.
than most commiters on this project are admins, not dev.
Asking them a
pull request with great code and comment is already great,
to learn all branching things is just too much in this
Of course we got some huge works in progress in dev, and
this is good.
Let take an example of a hugely moving item : the WebUI.
When we moved
from Mootools to JQuery, Andreas create a devel branch where
back all things in WebUI (and it took months :p ). This is a
way. One level of branching is great for huge things. More
is it just
Then there are minors things, like fixing typo, a new test,
a bug fix
or a small feature that is not activate by default (so no
Such things don't need a branch. the dev should know if a
need or not. If he doesn't know, then the good thing is to
But remember than each branch will make the merge harder,
even if with
git it's more a pain in the ass than svn or cvs. It's still
codes to merge in the end, so always more difficult than
just a trunk.
I don't also think that it's up to the community project to
bug backporting. I more see then project as Fedora, not as a
like one. If people want stability and bug fix on a 2years
because they fear too much a change, they can ask to an
this. It's their job. The project should allow people to
features and ideas. Putting too much branch things is a good
So we must rely on the test cases for knowing if we break
not. Tests should never be broken on master, because this
be the next version from a day to another. If there is a
bug, it means
that there is a flaw in tests, and they must be enhanced.
for a stable-branch is like saying "ok we got test cases but
really got faith in them". So if something new breaks test,
it must be
put in branch too until this is fixed, or is waiting in a
until so :)
I think the "if it breaks something or change user habits
from the last version, put it in branch" is a light and good
the pull requests of new commiters are still in master, but
requests are like a branch that don't break master until we
What others are thinking about this? Where should be put the
between "RedHat stable + backporting" and "Gnome3/KDE4 that
each release" ? :)
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
Shinken-devel mailing list