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 2012/04/22 10:09:44 UTC
Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> 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?
I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
redirection to ask to infra.
We currently have
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old
So we do we currently want
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R10.04: demo-stable
branch R09.04: demo-old
or
trunk : demo-trunk
branch R11.04: demo-stable
branch R10.04: demo-old
or
Or only the trunk and last branch?
etc.
In other words which combination do you prefer?
> 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?
It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on the other hand, there are certainly still interested users
out there and supporting or not is not a criterium
> 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...
Nobody care?
Jacques
> Jacques
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Thanks Christian,
From: "Christian Geisert" <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>
> Jacques Le Roux schrieb:
>
> [..]
>
>> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
>> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
>> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> I'm about to get it finally running..
>
> Christian
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Jacques Le Roux schrieb:
[..]
> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.
I'm about to get it finally running..
Christian
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
> This is a reasonable compromise.
>
> My suggestion for the URL regarding the latest stable release:
> http(s)://demo.ofbiz.apache.org
> or:
> http(s)://demo-ofbiz.apache.org
This will not change, it was already difficult to get the names from ASF/infra, sot it will still be trunk, stable and old, with
currently stable=10 and old=9
Christian worked on it this morning and got both stable and old running R10.04 (branch). They are now running R9.04 (branch). I
guess he crossed an issue, or did not want to have stable running 10 already, Christian?
Running branches allows to run revisions with as less bugs as possible
Jacques
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 23 april 2012 10:25 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
>> het volgende:
>
>> What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and
>> such
>> Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk
>> system
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>>
>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
>>> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
>>> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there
>>> are
>>> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>>>
>>> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a
>>> regular
>>> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
>>> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
>>> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
>>> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
>>> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
>>> demo environment than OFBiz.
>>> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had
>>> been
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> This is not something we should want to have...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>>> het volgende:
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>>>> regulations
>>>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>>>
>>>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>>>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and
>>>> intended
>>>> for larger audience.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
This is a reasonable compromise.
My suggestion for the URL regarding the latest stable release:
http(s)://demo.ofbiz.apache.org
or:
http(s)://demo-ofbiz.apache.org
Regards,
Pierre
Op 23 april 2012 10:25 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
> het volgende:
> What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and
> such
> Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk
> system
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>
> I agree.
>>
>> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
>> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
>> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there
>> are
>> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>>
>> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a
>> regular
>> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
>> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
>> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
>> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
>> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
>> demo environment than OFBiz.
>> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had
>> been
>> broken.
>>
>> This is not something we should want to have...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.**com <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>>
>> het volgende:
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>
>>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>>> regulations
>>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>>
>>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and
>>> intended
>>> for larger audience.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
What we could do is still support it but don't link it from main site and such
Because it's very convenient for committers to have another running trunk system
Jacques
From: "Pierre Smits" <pi...@gmail.com>
>I agree.
>
> Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
> If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
> they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
> betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
>
> As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
> (daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
> having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
> OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
> breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
> broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
> demo environment than OFBiz.
> Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
> broken.
>
> This is not something we should want to have...
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre
>
> Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>
>> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
>> regulations
>> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>>
>> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
>> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
>> for larger audience.
>>
>> Jacopo
>
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
I agree.
Demo environments is not for OFBiz developers.
If you want to have an OFBiz developer to have a viewpoint on trunk where
they can experience what has been changed in trunk I believe that there are
betters means available and in place already (SVN, CI reports, etc)
As far as I can see it, a demo environment of trunk needs to have a regular
(daily?) deployment of code and demo data. This could potentially lead to
having an upload being done to the demo location at just the moment that a
OFBiz committer has partially uploaded his commits to trunk and the demo
breaks during build and anyone (not only OFBiz developers) experiences a
broken demo. Giving the community unnecessary headaches about fixing the
demo environment than OFBiz.
Look at how often Jacques had to step in to look at why demo-trunk had been
broken.
This is not something we should want to have...
Regards,
Pierre
Op 23 april 2012 09:27 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>
> > I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules,
> regulations
> > and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
>
> We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is
> unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended
> for larger audience.
>
> Jacopo
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
> and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
We simply have to make sure it is always clear when a resource is unreleased and intended for OFBiz developers only or released and intended for larger audience.
Jacopo
Re: Questions about demo instances [was Re: Summary of some recent
discussions around the OFBiz release roadmap and some proposals]
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jacques,
I believe it is not good to expose potential end users to something that
can be expected to be broken (meaning trunk) as a demo environment, because
of the high rate of development taking place in that environment.
I also believe that Jacopo said that something is in the rules, regulations
and/or guidelines of the ASF about the same issue.
Therefore:
-1 on having trunk as demo
+1 on having latest stable release as demo
Given the fact that the older release branches are just maintenance
releases and that we recommend that new end users should look at the latest
stable release (currently 10.04.02) it would not make sense to do demos of
older branches.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 22 april 2012 10:09 schreef Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com
> het volgende:
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I was at the origin of this demand. Christian handled it with infra
> (demo.old.ofbiz domain), so it's ready, it's just a matter of
> redirection to ask to infra.
>
> We currently have
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> So we do we currently want
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R10.04: demo-stable
> branch R09.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> trunk : demo-trunk
> branch R11.04: demo-stable
> branch R10.04: demo-old
>
> or
>
> Or only the trunk and last branch?
>
> etc.
>
> In other words which combination do you prefer?
>
>
> 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?
>>
>
> It should be already done, since we don't support R09.04 anymore. But on
> the other hand, there are certainly still interested users out there and
> supporting or not is not a criterium
>
> 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...
>>
>
> Nobody care?
>
> Jacques
>
> Jacques
>>
>