|Subject:||Re: [Dolibarr-dev] Dolibarr 3.7 freeze|
|Date:||Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:55:54 +0100|
The community does not need dynamic but stable, rendering uniform code is a good thing but the short duration of the development period can not get to the bottom of things
Many customers ask for news OK, but the majority of ask for stability.
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Maintain two versions per year demotivate developers who prefer to spend time to add new features to make it compatible with the latest version released
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Maintain two versions per year demotivate users who do not need a new version when the version he uses is stable: for them it is a waste of time and money (especially when it to pay updates of modules but that's another subject).
<![if !supportLists]>· <![endif]>Maintain two versions per year does not make a major update such as restructuring and renaming files according to a defined standard objects. All the more it comes to cosmetic editing (change ‘fiche' with 'card' which impacts heavily by developers changing modules).
http://www.benke.fr - 0637056117
De : address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden De la part de Maxime Kohlhaas
I think that keeping this 2 major versions a year plan is a good way to keep the community dynamism.
This does not prevent from doing quality developments (as many thiings in 3.7 has been done to uniformize and anglicize the code).
Also, we saw that there's a lack of testing after developing new features. So having more new feature after a complete year of development will mean more testing... I know that today with a new release every 6 month, we focus on testing and bug fixing more often...
Finally, there are a lot of customers asking for new features (they love open-source :) ) and telling them they have to wait a whole year to have it seems complicated to me.
But that's only my opinion. Charles, can you share the pros and cons to support your opinion ?
26 rue Barthélémy de Laffemas
2014-10-27 0:55 GMT+01:00 <address@hidden>:
Freeze the develop branch to start beta in not a good idea : we need more
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|