Re: [cowiki-dev] Releasing coWiki with the "working" parser

On 11 Jul 07:44, Paul Hanchett wrote:

> Daniel T. Gorski wrote:
> 
> >LOL, I am ACK with you, but you know that Becky and Randy are Pauls family?
> >:=) ... I needed to laugh, hehe. Forgive me, Paul, I ment it pleasant :)

> Randy would be amused that he's been adopted, but I'm sure he likes his 
> family just fine.

Oops :) Hehe. I shouln't pretend to be smarter ...

> My point is that
> 
>    * The development team has scratched some technological issues that
>      (under normal circumstances) make absolutely no difference to users.

Sure? This has been not verified.

>    * There are no performance enhancements or changes to "pay" for the
>      effort of upgrading.

Yes. Even the opposite is the case, the performanse should decrease: that's
the price for InnoDB.

>    * If Boron wasn't adequate for a task, then neither will be
>      Fullerene (at this point).

Hance the suggestion for a RC. The ChangeLog reflects a few issues.

>    * The most we can claim to have is a "Bug-fix" release.  As such,
>      except for the database incompatibility, the most we can claim is
>      0.3.5...

I though about 0.3.5 first, but realised that the migration to InnoDB is not
a "micro" change.

> BTW, with the INNODB database requirement, there are quite a few places 
> we will no longer run.  As has been noted, XAMPP no longer works, and 
> frankly I wonder why we have paid this price...

We didn't pay any price yet, as no one uses CVS HEAD. The price we will have
to pay someday is the price for a more stable application. And this should
bother you, it's a good price.

> I know the effort was to get database reliability because of the "Magic"
> problem, but it has been demonstrated with the new code so I am as ready
> to roll back the database as you are the parser.

The database stuff works (even if the XAMPP guys are not able to set a
config parameter right in their setup - to be honest I never heard of XAMPP
before Sy mentioned it). On the other hand the parser does not work ask
expected. This can not be compared.

> I say "Fix the database AND the parser before the next release."

+1, yes, the migration to InnoDB was the first big step for fixing the
database - and as already said, it works (except the magic-bug, that might
or might not have something to do with it). The parser, as can be seen on
<http://dev.cowiki.org>, stumbles on small issues.

> I also don't see any reason that, if InnoDB isn't available why we can't
> fall back to MyISAM and simply forgo ACID quality transactions.

Sure you can, but earlier or later data loss will be the result. I can not
imagine, that this is what you want. coWiki manages a tree not a simple
guestbook entry.

regards dtg