[Owncloud] ownCloud release

[Jan-Christoph Borchardt]

On Mon, September 26, 2011 04:30, Elias Probst wrote:
> On Monday 26 September 2011 00:26:06 Jan-Christoph Borchardt wrote:
>> Since Gitorious also offers a compressed archive download, why don’t we
>> just leave that? We can still formally have it labeled "ownCloud 2 beta"
>> (for people who like clear labels like that) but in reality it will
>> update
>> with the latest fixes. Basically, a rolling release underneath but a
>> fixed
>> release on top.
>
> That's considered to be one of the worst habits at all among upstream
> developers by distribution packagers.
>
> If the code changes, do a new release. Why not simply doing another beta
> release?

Sorry I wasn’t clear: Of course for people who need fixed releases
(package managers, who else?) we would provide a fixed version.

But for everyone going to the website there’s no reason to give him the
latest (stable) version. As for releases we basically just freeze master
and put it in a zip file anyway, I don’t see the difference. There might
be bugs in it (probably) and I don’t want to end up having version 2.1 or
"patch 31" because that’s confusing (/useful for package managers only) –
everyone else should just get the latest and greatest.

That’s why we need to work towards having master really stable and
deployable at any time. Fixes can always go to master directly but new
features / apps / whatever need to stay in branches until they are fully
developed and "signed off". Otherwise we end up with lots of features but
not good ones.


On Mon, September 26, 2011 08:24, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> Thats an interesting idea. But I´m not sure this works. The purpose of
> beta releases
> is to give testers an defined state which they can test. Testing a moving
> target is a testing nightmare.

The problem is that at the moment (or also generally) the testing is done
through using. And using a buggy software is a bigger nightmare –
especially when the bugs are already fixed.