[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Dolibarr-dev] Dolibarr 3.8.1 and freeze of Dolibarr 3.9

From: Sasa Ostrouska
Subject: Re: [Dolibarr-dev] Dolibarr 3.8.1 and freeze of Dolibarr 3.9
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:24:24 +0000

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:11 AM, CF <address@hidden> wrote:
ahahah, i agre with most of your parts.

Anyhow, the SF <--> Github differences should be adressed to avoid bad version number (understand: differents). I also understand SF audience is not negligeable so simply closing it seems an harsh option at this time.

SF is a good place to host downloads in my opinion, the thing is to make a script which would take care of those issues.
A script should do the tarball, the upload and the git tags. In that way we would not have anymore differences between the git tree and the uploaded tarball, of course if nobody then commits to the tagged tree. The script should also create a new tag+1 branch where all the bug fixes should enter until the script is run again. In other words automatization of the process is needed. Human make errors.


Le 14/10/2015 18:13, Doursenaud, Raphaël a écrit :
Ok, who's up for a software lifecycle and version numbering schemes thesis? Maybe you can get a PhD out of it!

Jokes aside, the thing is that NO software release cycle is perfect because various audiences seek different things.

FLOSS developers tend to prefer "release often, release early" and "semantic versioning".
Perfectionists are going for "when it's ready" and "I only need to increase one number since every release is just perfect".
Traditional corporate vendors usually prefer "Rush it out the door, we need it for yesterday, just try to hide defects under the carpet and colorful design" and "We don't care, give us the biggest number so marketing can show off".
Integrators and users want "Something with all the bells and whistles that works out of the box, forever" and "No new releases, they are a pain to deploy, so give me all the features in this one".
To which I reply: "Not gonna happen!".

The current process is designed around the need to get code out at a regular pace with some predictability to it.
It gives a version (N-2) supported roughly 1 and a half year.
I don't think it's that great, but at least it's there!

IMO The Dolibarr project's lifecyle is missing some key elements to achieve better releases quality before even thinking about changing the release periodicity or version numbering.

Here's a non exhaustive list from the top of my head:
  • Standardized and enforced good commits content and messages.
  • Formal code reviews for everyone including the project maintainers.
  • Continuous integration used properly. Ie. no one can bypass it. Ever.
  • The previous two boils down to: no one pushes directly to the main repository.
  • Proper stabilization branches. One example of this is git flow but other strategies are out there.
  • Proper tagging. Having releases in the wild that do not match the repository tags is a waste of everyone's time.
  • Proper pre-release test cycle. With multiple alpha, beta and RC releases. All properly advertised to get people involved.
  • Testing procedures and tooling.
  • Automated building for all pre-releases.
  • Formal testing both automated (Think unit tests, selenium, test instances, fuzzing…) and manual.
  • Final release should be exactly the same as the last RC.
  • Long term commitment to lean toward modern coding practices (refactoring, objectification, automate everything…)
  • Bugs bissecting to fix them at the root, not only in the reported versions.
  • Encourage unit tests for critical bug fixes to prevent regressions.
  • Community driven design before coding.
As you can see, there's a lot of work and it can't be done by any single individual. The whole community needs to get involved.
But for that to happen, there should be a strong commitment from the maintainers and core developers to stick to it and make it happen.

We've already made some good progresses since switching to GitHub.
Code is reviewed more often and bug reports are all assessed and properly tagged (I devote some of my own time to that weekly).

Keep in mind that all of that is a community effort, so the best thing to do is step up to the plate, pick a task and do something ;)

Looking forward to your contributions!

2015-10-14 8:23 GMT+02:00 Jean-François Ferry <address@hidden>:
Hi all,

Le 13/10/2015 18:38, Charles Benke a écrit :

This is not the right question to ask,

The right question is "how to ensure that when there is the most download of dolibarr (September to March) the broadcast version (.2 like) is as stable as possible for novice users"

To answer this question we must look at the proposed roadmap with  :

-  .0 in april,

-  .1 in june-july

-  .2 in september

We are doing wrong since a long time... Versions shouldn't be related to any date but to software structure. Please see :)

Dolibarr-dev mailing list

Raphaël Doursenaud
Directeur technique (CTO)
+33 (0)5 35 53 97 13 - +33 (0)6 68 48 20 10

Technopole Hélioparc
2 avenue du Président Pierre Angot
64053 PAU CEDEX 9
SARL au capital de 7 500 € - R.C.S. PAU 528 995 921

Dolibarr-dev mailing list

Dolibarr-dev mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]