You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> on 2012/02/26 11:34:39 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1293792 - /ofbiz/site/download.html
Hi Jacopo, all,
Inline
Jacques
From: <ja...@apache.org>
> Author: jacopoc
> Date: Sun Feb 26 09:34:01 2012
> New Revision: 1293792
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1293792&view=rev
> Log:
> Updated page with a lot of information about releases and release names; added new release 09.04.02; archived older releases;
> commented section with links to the snapshots page: according to ASF rules the page should only be used by developers and not
> referenced by pages used by users.
>
>
> Modified:
> ofbiz/site/download.html
>
> Modified: ofbiz/site/download.html
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/site/download.html?rev=1293792&r1=1293791&r2=1293792&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- ofbiz/site/download.html (original)
> +++ ofbiz/site/download.html Sun Feb 26 09:34:01 2012
[...]
> +<h3>Apache OFBiz 10.04</h3>
> +<p>Released in January 2011, it contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2010
> +and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes. It is our current "stable" release.
> </p>
So, to be consistent, we should swap our stable demo from 09.4 to 10.04 and keep 09.04 as old demo like Christian began to work on
it. We will see ASAP I guess...
We will then also update the index page to let people know they can still test/use the oldest demo (would be 09.04 until next swap).
Jacques
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Please stay with your opinion
Jacopo
On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Jacopo,
>
> there is, as you state no rule against it, i gave you my reasons and stay with my opinion that it should stay on the main page.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 02/27/2012 07:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> To:<de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
>>> ........
>>>>> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another place in order to avoid any confusion.
>>>> Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>>>>
>>> No I do not think so for the following reasons:
>>> 1. OFBiz is not for end users anyway: can an end-user setup a e-commerce shop? Can he intialize and install the system? He ALWAYS need help.
>> The "user" here is the Company using the software: it could be a big company with a big internal IT or a software company selling services to its customers... they both would be end users of OFBiz; and yes I know a lot "users" that are using ofbiz (possibly customizing it a lot) that are using one release and not the trunk.
>>
>>> 2. The trunk is as stable as the other versions, with a lot of enhancement added.
>> The fact that it is not officially approved for release by the PMC is an *important* difference that any PMC member must understand and accept; we can work together releasing more often etc... but we cannot ignore this rule.
>>
>>> 3. If we refactoring we keep it in a separate branch until it is unlikely to upset other functions.
>> I don't understand the above statement.
>>
>>> so we should keep it as a demo on the front page.
>>>
>> As I said above, keeping url of the demo of the trunk in the main page is not a violation of ASF rules in itself, but it is important that the link is not unclear or confusing to users.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Then as suggested Jacopo we should at least add a mention to clearly tell it's not official release
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker" <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> Jacopo,
>
> there is, as you state no rule against it, i gave you my reasons and stay with my opinion that it should stay on the main page.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 02/27/2012 07:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> To:<de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
>>> ........
>>>>> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not
>>>>> be able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for
>>>>> developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another
>>>>> place in order to avoid any confusion.
>>>> Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>>>>
>>> No I do not think so for the following reasons:
>>> 1. OFBiz is not for end users anyway: can an end-user setup a e-commerce shop? Can he intialize and install the system? He
>>> ALWAYS need help.
>> The "user" here is the Company using the software: it could be a big company with a big internal IT or a software company selling
>> services to its customers... they both would be end users of OFBiz; and yes I know a lot "users" that are using ofbiz (possibly
>> customizing it a lot) that are using one release and not the trunk.
>>
>>> 2. The trunk is as stable as the other versions, with a lot of enhancement added.
>> The fact that it is not officially approved for release by the PMC is an *important* difference that any PMC member must
>> understand and accept; we can work together releasing more often etc... but we cannot ignore this rule.
>>
>>> 3. If we refactoring we keep it in a separate branch until it is unlikely to upset other functions.
>> I don't understand the above statement.
>>
>>> so we should keep it as a demo on the front page.
>>>
>> As I said above, keeping url of the demo of the trunk in the main page is not a violation of ASF rules in itself, but it is
>> important that the link is not unclear or confusing to users.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Jacopo,
there is, as you state no rule against it, i gave you my reasons and
stay with my opinion that it should stay on the main page.
Regards,
Hans
On 02/27/2012 07:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato"<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> To:<de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
>> ........
>>>> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another place in order to avoid any confusion.
>>> Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>>>
>> No I do not think so for the following reasons:
>> 1. OFBiz is not for end users anyway: can an end-user setup a e-commerce shop? Can he intialize and install the system? He ALWAYS need help.
> The "user" here is the Company using the software: it could be a big company with a big internal IT or a software company selling services to its customers... they both would be end users of OFBiz; and yes I know a lot "users" that are using ofbiz (possibly customizing it a lot) that are using one release and not the trunk.
>
>> 2. The trunk is as stable as the other versions, with a lot of enhancement added.
> The fact that it is not officially approved for release by the PMC is an *important* difference that any PMC member must understand and accept; we can work together releasing more often etc... but we cannot ignore this rule.
>
>> 3. If we refactoring we keep it in a separate branch until it is unlikely to upset other functions.
> I don't understand the above statement.
>
>> so we should keep it as a demo on the front page.
>>
> As I said above, keeping url of the demo of the trunk in the main page is not a violation of ASF rules in itself, but it is important that the link is not unclear or confusing to users.
>
> Jacopo
>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
> ........
>>> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another place in order to avoid any confusion.
>>
>> Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>>
> No I do not think so for the following reasons:
> 1. OFBiz is not for end users anyway: can an end-user setup a e-commerce shop? Can he intialize and install the system? He ALWAYS need help.
The "user" here is the Company using the software: it could be a big company with a big internal IT or a software company selling services to its customers... they both would be end users of OFBiz; and yes I know a lot "users" that are using ofbiz (possibly customizing it a lot) that are using one release and not the trunk.
> 2. The trunk is as stable as the other versions, with a lot of enhancement added.
The fact that it is not officially approved for release by the PMC is an *important* difference that any PMC member must understand and accept; we can work together releasing more often etc... but we cannot ignore this rule.
> 3. If we refactoring we keep it in a separate branch until it is unlikely to upset other functions.
I don't understand the above statement.
>
> so we should keep it as a demo on the front page.
>
As I said above, keeping url of the demo of the trunk in the main page is not a violation of ASF rules in itself, but it is important that the link is not unclear or confusing to users.
Jacopo
> Regards,
> Hans
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
> <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
........
>> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main
>> page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be able to
>> use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)?
>> If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for developers (and I
>> completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at
>> least clarify the labels) to another place in order to avoid any
>> confusion.
>
> Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>
No I do not think so for the following reasons:
1. OFBiz is not for end users anyway: can an end-user setup a e-commerce
shop? Can he intialize and install the system? He ALWAYS need help.
2. The trunk is as stable as the other versions, with a lot of
enhancement added.
3. If we refactoring we keep it in a separate branch until it is
unlikely to upset other functions.
so we should keep it as a demo on the front page.
Regards,
Hans
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
To: <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, to be consistent, we should swap our stable demo from 09.4 to 10.04 and keep 09.04 as old demo like Christian began to work
>>>> on it. We will see ASAP I guess...
>>>> We will then also update the index page to let people know they can still test/use the oldest demo (would be 09.04 until next
>>>> swap).
>>>
>>> thanks for bringing up this topic, it was the next in my todo list.
>>> There are a few things to discuss about the way we have setup our demos:
>>>
>>> * we publish a link to the trunk demo from the main page: this is very useful for developers but I doubt it is compliant with
>>> the ASF policies; I propose to keep the demo but remove the link from the site pages (we will keep the info in the Wiki and
>>> share the url in Jira or dev list communications)
>>
>> Are you sure ASF has policies about what should be demoed and what should not? But finally if we would want both it's more a
>> resource issues, see below...
>
> There is no policy that prevents us from publishing a demo of unreleased code (i.e. not officially signed and approved for
> distribution by the PMC): it is still our responsibility to not induce *users* (but developers are fine!) to use unreleased code.
> What I would like to avoid is something like this:
> * new user: "hey demo-trunk is great, I like feature XYZ, where can I download this software?"
> * committer: "feature XYZ is only available from trunk, please checkout and use that"
>
> So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be
> able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for
> developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another place in
> order to avoid any confusion.
Agreed, trunk should be keeped as demo but removed from main page
>
>>
>>> * instead of demoing releases we are actually demoing release branches; this is less critical than the above point but still not
>>> completely ok with the ASF policies; we can address this in one of the following ways:
>>> a) ignore the problem for now (having a running instance of each of the release branches is useful for developers but also for
>>> users)
>>
>> Yes, really. It's easier for both parts to exchanges about popping issues. I'm ok to be at the service of users, but I wonder if
>> it's worth the effort on this aspect...
>>
>>> b) build the demos on latest official releases instead of branches; and possibly add new instances for the branches as well (but
>>> publish, in the indexpage, the url to the official releases only)
>>
>> We have not enough places for more than 3 demos. Users can build their own demos locally. Of course unofficial demo servers could
>> be used, but it has been proved in the past that it's easier to have only Apache demos to maintain... Things are pretty stable
>> for a while (apart some unexplained Derby issues recently), of course running real realeas unstead would not change that much.
>> Only that we would lose the very handy part for committers (3 instances running is great).
>>
>>> c) hide the links to the demo instances from the main page
>>> * personally (but this is minor) I don't like the names: "demo-trunk", "demo-old"... I would prefer a cleaner approach where the
>>> names are neutral like "test1", "test2" etc... or "demo1", "demo2" etc... we will then decide what to publish on them
>>> * I don't like the name "stable release" because we have actually several stable release that are valid at the same time:
>>> currently 09.04.02 and 10.04 are both stable releases; soon we will also have 11.04.01 stable release
>>
>> demo-trunk and demo-stable name were 1st suggested by infra. Then we agreed on demo-old for the penultimate
>
> Yeah, I remember... and this doesn't help me to like them more :-)
I can't do more :o)
> To summarize: if we want to keep 3 instances to simplify the work of OFBiz developers rather than users then we should probably
> have:
>
> demo-trunk --> trunk
> demo-stable --> 11.04 branch
> demo-old --> 10.04 branch
>
> because these are the 3 active branches (even if we still don't have a release from 11.04, but this should come soon).
> But as you can see the names don't make much sense as 10.04 is not "old" and 11.04 is not more "stable" than 10.04
Actually it was my idea to have 3 instances running. Intially infra decided for the names, but IIRW old was our own decision and
there is no associated DNS yet. I think infra will be reluctant to change names/DNS for stable and trunk.
What we could do is to use demo-stable to demo the really last stable release and ask infra for another DNS (demo-recent?) for us
(devs) to associate the last recent branch
Only demo-stable would have a link from main page, the others would be from wiki (repos page?)
My 2 cts
Jacques
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>>
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>> 1) demos are useful to users and developers
>>> 2) links to demos for users should be shown in the ofbiz site; links to demos for developers should be kept in the dev
>>> list/Jira/wiki
>>
>> We would need more resources and I doubt infra will agree. Same issues for the 2 points below
>>
>> To be discussed more... ;o)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> 3) demos for users should be based on official releases only: 09.04.02, 10.04
>>> 4) demos for developers should be based on trunk and active release branches, currently: trunk, 10.04, 11.04 (and soon 12.04)
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>
>
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> So, to be consistent, we should swap our stable demo from 09.4 to 10.04 and keep 09.04 as old demo like Christian began to work on it. We will see ASAP I guess...
>>> We will then also update the index page to let people know they can still test/use the oldest demo (would be 09.04 until next swap).
>>
>> thanks for bringing up this topic, it was the next in my todo list.
>> There are a few things to discuss about the way we have setup our demos:
>>
>> * we publish a link to the trunk demo from the main page: this is very useful for developers but I doubt it is compliant with the ASF policies; I propose to keep the demo but remove the link from the site pages (we will keep the info in the Wiki and share the url in Jira or dev list communications)
>
> Are you sure ASF has policies about what should be demoed and what should not? But finally if we would want both it's more a resource issues, see below...
There is no policy that prevents us from publishing a demo of unreleased code (i.e. not officially signed and approved for distribution by the PMC): it is still our responsibility to not induce *users* (but developers are fine!) to use unreleased code.
What I would like to avoid is something like this:
* new user: "hey demo-trunk is great, I like feature XYZ, where can I download this software?"
* committer: "feature XYZ is only available from trunk, please checkout and use that"
So my point is: why are we demoing the trunk to users (the ofbiz main page is mostly addressed to them) if the users will not be able to use the code until is released (and this could take up to a year)? If, as you mention, it is a useful resource for developers (and I completely agree with you) we should probably move the urls (or at least clarify the labels) to another place in order to avoid any confusion.
>
>> * instead of demoing releases we are actually demoing release branches; this is less critical than the above point but still not completely ok with the ASF policies; we can address this in one of the following ways:
>> a) ignore the problem for now (having a running instance of each of the release branches is useful for developers but also for users)
>
> Yes, really. It's easier for both parts to exchanges about popping issues. I'm ok to be at the service of users, but I wonder if it's worth the effort on this aspect...
>
>> b) build the demos on latest official releases instead of branches; and possibly add new instances for the branches as well (but publish, in the indexpage, the url to the official releases only)
>
> We have not enough places for more than 3 demos. Users can build their own demos locally. Of course unofficial demo servers could be used, but it has been proved in the past that it's easier to have only Apache demos to maintain... Things are pretty stable for a while (apart some unexplained Derby issues recently), of course running real realeas unstead would not change that much. Only that we would lose the very handy part for committers (3 instances running is great).
>
>> c) hide the links to the demo instances from the main page
>> * personally (but this is minor) I don't like the names: "demo-trunk", "demo-old"... I would prefer a cleaner approach where the names are neutral like "test1", "test2" etc... or "demo1", "demo2" etc... we will then decide what to publish on them
>> * I don't like the name "stable release" because we have actually several stable release that are valid at the same time: currently 09.04.02 and 10.04 are both stable releases; soon we will also have 11.04.01 stable release
>
> demo-trunk and demo-stable name were 1st suggested by infra. Then we agreed on demo-old for the penultimate
Yeah, I remember... and this doesn't help me to like them more :-)
To summarize: if we want to keep 3 instances to simplify the work of OFBiz developers rather than users then we should probably have:
demo-trunk --> trunk
demo-stable --> 11.04 branch
demo-old --> 10.04 branch
because these are the 3 active branches (even if we still don't have a release from 11.04, but this should come soon).
But as you can see the names don't make much sense as 10.04 is not "old" and 11.04 is not more "stable" than 10.04
Kind regards,
Jacopo
>
>>
>> Summary:
>> 1) demos are useful to users and developers
>> 2) links to demos for users should be shown in the ofbiz site; links to demos for developers should be kept in the dev list/Jira/wiki
>
> We would need more resources and I doubt infra will agree. Same issues for the 2 points below
>
> To be discussed more... ;o)
>
> Jacques
>
>> 3) demos for users should be based on official releases only: 09.04.02, 10.04
>> 4) demos for developers should be based on trunk and active release branches, currently: trunk, 10.04, 11.04 (and soon 12.04)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Hi Jacques,
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> So, to be consistent, we should swap our stable demo from 09.4 to 10.04 and keep 09.04 as old demo like Christian began to work
>> on it. We will see ASAP I guess...
>> We will then also update the index page to let people know they can still test/use the oldest demo (would be 09.04 until next
>> swap).
>
> thanks for bringing up this topic, it was the next in my todo list.
> There are a few things to discuss about the way we have setup our demos:
>
> * we publish a link to the trunk demo from the main page: this is very useful for developers but I doubt it is compliant with the
> ASF policies; I propose to keep the demo but remove the link from the site pages (we will keep the info in the Wiki and share the
> url in Jira or dev list communications)
Are you sure ASF has policies about what should be demoed and what should not? But finally if we would want both it's more a
resource issues, see below...
> * instead of demoing releases we are actually demoing release branches; this is less critical than the above point but still not
> completely ok with the ASF policies; we can address this in one of the following ways:
> a) ignore the problem for now (having a running instance of each of the release branches is useful for developers but also for
> users)
Yes, really. It's easier for both parts to exchanges about popping issues. I'm ok to be at the service of users, but I wonder if
it's worth the effort on this aspect...
> b) build the demos on latest official releases instead of branches; and possibly add new instances for the branches as well (but
> publish, in the indexpage, the url to the official releases only)
We have not enough places for more than 3 demos. Users can build their own demos locally. Of course unofficial demo servers could be
used, but it has been proved in the past that it's easier to have only Apache demos to maintain... Things are pretty stable for a
while (apart some unexplained Derby issues recently), of course running real realeas unstead would not change that much. Only that
we would lose the very handy part for committers (3 instances running is great).
> c) hide the links to the demo instances from the main page
> * personally (but this is minor) I don't like the names: "demo-trunk", "demo-old"... I would prefer a cleaner approach where the
> names are neutral like "test1", "test2" etc... or "demo1", "demo2" etc... we will then decide what to publish on them
> * I don't like the name "stable release" because we have actually several stable release that are valid at the same time:
> currently 09.04.02 and 10.04 are both stable releases; soon we will also have 11.04.01 stable release
demo-trunk and demo-stable name were 1st suggested by infra. Then we agreed on demo-old for the penultimate
>
> Summary:
> 1) demos are useful to users and developers
> 2) links to demos for users should be shown in the ofbiz site; links to demos for developers should be kept in the dev
> list/Jira/wiki
We would need more resources and I doubt infra will agree. Same issues for the 2 points below
To be discussed more... ;o)
Jacques
> 3) demos for users should be based on official releases only: 09.04.02, 10.04
> 4) demos for developers should be based on trunk and active release branches, currently: trunk, 10.04, 11.04 (and soon 12.04)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Jacques,
On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> So, to be consistent, we should swap our stable demo from 09.4 to 10.04 and keep 09.04 as old demo like Christian began to work on it. We will see ASAP I guess...
> We will then also update the index page to let people know they can still test/use the oldest demo (would be 09.04 until next swap).
thanks for bringing up this topic, it was the next in my todo list.
There are a few things to discuss about the way we have setup our demos:
* we publish a link to the trunk demo from the main page: this is very useful for developers but I doubt it is compliant with the ASF policies; I propose to keep the demo but remove the link from the site pages (we will keep the info in the Wiki and share the url in Jira or dev list communications)
* instead of demoing releases we are actually demoing release branches; this is less critical than the above point but still not completely ok with the ASF policies; we can address this in one of the following ways:
a) ignore the problem for now (having a running instance of each of the release branches is useful for developers but also for users)
b) build the demos on latest official releases instead of branches; and possibly add new instances for the branches as well (but publish, in the indexpage, the url to the official releases only)
c) hide the links to the demo instances from the main page
* personally (but this is minor) I don't like the names: "demo-trunk", "demo-old"... I would prefer a cleaner approach where the names are neutral like "test1", "test2" etc... or "demo1", "demo2" etc... we will then decide what to publish on them
* I don't like the name "stable release" because we have actually several stable release that are valid at the same time: currently 09.04.02 and 10.04 are both stable releases; soon we will also have 11.04.01 stable release
Summary:
1) demos are useful to users and developers
2) links to demos for users should be shown in the ofbiz site; links to demos for developers should be kept in the dev list/Jira/wiki
3) demos for users should be based on official releases only: 09.04.02, 10.04
4) demos for developers should be based on trunk and active release branches, currently: trunk, 10.04, 11.04 (and soon 12.04)
Kind regards,
Jacopo