Re: Patch submission and release policy (Was: [PATCH] problems with HTTPS and base support for per message billing)

I agree with Oded that currently at the moment people are using the CVS 
'live' tree as a release ready version and expecting it to work 100% - a 
situation that has occured due to the delay of good new releases since the 
demise of WapIT.

We should direct most 'newer user/developers' of the system to the stable 
release source to work with and then use a more live cvs tree for the 
majority of this group that are making daily/weekly changes to their 
systems.

This way we can put more left-field or experimental changes into the 
system and survive any potential knock-on affect they may have.

I know myself I run my own cvs repositry of kannel with 'production' and 
'development' versions of the system in there for exactly this reason.

Alex

On Sun, 19 May 2002, Oded Arbel wrote:

> Agreed. I was hoping that at least the billing issue (I remember it
> being talked about in the list a while back) would interest people.
> I do think, though, that fixes to problems not yet detected "in the
> wild" should go in anyway : that's why it's called a "development tree",
> if the solution does not break anything - of course.
> IMHO, the current situation where the CVS build must never be broken
> because it is the "production version" and so patches require careful
> scrutiny before going in is not healthy. CVS _is_ the place to test
> fixes and new features - when you require that people will download and
> apply your patches one by one, the number of testers will shrink to the
> number of people interested in the specfic patch - which in a
> not-so-high visibility project like Kannel could easily get down to 1~2
> people - or even less. case in point is the +CMTI patch by Alex Judd -
> it seems like a perfectly valid feature, but only 2 or 3 people on this
> list are at the same time interested and skilled to test it - under a
> circumstences where some of them cannot find the time to do so, this
> perfectly good feature would simply be abandoned.
> 
> I suggest we should roll out a "release" ASAP, using the following
> schedule : 
> - branch the tree now (yesterday would have been a good time too ;-) and
> label it 1.2.0.
> - bug fixes may be submitted to either of the trees, and then ported to
> the other.
> - new features may be submitted only to the HEAD tree.
> - features and bug fixes will be submitted freely to the HEAD tree with
> minimum checks for style and obvious coding errors.
> - the HEAD tree will be considered unstable and fit only for development
> work.
> 
> Using this method we would not further degrade the current situation
> (where people who have problems are told to upgrade their production
> servers to the CVS version - as it is more stable), while stabilizing
> the development effort for a full fledged "stable" release w/o hampering
> further feature development.
> 
> Opinions please ?
> 
> --
> Oded Arbel
> m-Wise Inc.
> [email protected]
> (972)-67-340014
> (972)-9-9581711 (ext: 116)
> 
> ::..
> Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:29 PM
> > Cc: Kannel-devel (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] problems with HTTPS and base support for 
> > per message billing.
> > 
> > 
> > > Both patches are deployed and "works for me", and while I understand
> > > that those are not high priority  problems for most users, I will be
> > > grateful if the patches are incorporated into the CVS (will 
> > save me work
> > > when I update from CVS ;-)
> > 
> > we have to garantee that no "it cool and needed for me" issues go to
> > easy to the cvs tree. As long as things can be configured to serve the
> > needs of several user parties that's better then having properietary
> > solution fixing IMO.
> > 
> > Stipe
> > 
> > [email protected]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Wapme Systems AG
> > 
> > Münsterstr. 248
> > 40470 Düsseldorf
> > 
> > Tel: +49-211-74845-0
> > Fax: +49-211-74845-299
> > 
> > E-Mail: [email protected]
> > Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > wapme.net - wherever you are
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Alex Judd
http://www.skywire.co.uk