How about new RC?

[platzwart]

monotek Wrote:Now there are 18 active tickets. Why are new tickets not moved to next release?

i don't need a totally buggy RC... a RC should be nearly stable otherwise people install an useless version and everyone asks for solutions that are make in the next snapshot (means a lot of spam in forum).

>> release the next RC if and only if this version is really usefull!!!

[monotek]

In your opinion the current release (called rc2) is totally buggy?
If so, it shouldnt be called rc, right?

But thats not the point. The point is that the main tasks dont gets any attention because of all the small bugs that are postet and fixed every day.

In my opinion its better to focus on the main tasks first. Otherwise these main parts of the software dont gets extensively tested because they will just be finished at the end of development.

Maybe it was not the best idea releasing a rc version before all new features are implemented. Therefore the new features should be added now. After that you can fix bugs like its normal in rc releases.

[RatS]

monotek Wrote:But thats not the point. The point is that the main tasks dont gets any attention because of all the small bugs that are postet and fixed every day.

If you have the time use it better than saying us what to do. I've no time for the "main tasks". I've a Live, a Wife, a Study and a Company.
Why are you always blaming us instead of helping?

[platzwart]

monotek Wrote:In your opinion the current release (called rc2) is totally buggy?
If so, it shouldnt be called rc, right?

NO! rc2 is not totally buggy, therefore it's a RC :-D but the current snapshots are buggy -> don't make a RC of it ^^

[raphael]

Quote:Why are you always blaming us instead of helping?

second that.
I've also have a life and my studies require a lot of time, I barely have time for anything else right now (and it will get worse when the examinations-period starts).

Quote:the current snapshots are buggy

personally I consider the RC's more bogus than latest trunk

[monotek]

RatS Wrote:

monotek Wrote:But thats not the point. The point is that the main tasks dont gets any attention because of all the small bugs that are postet and fixed every day.

If you have the time use it better than saying us what to do. I've no time for the "main tasks". I've a Live, a Wife, a Study and a Company.
Why are you always blaming us instead of helping?

You contradict yourself. If you have no time for the main task why its time to fix the small bugs?

In my opinion this project makes the same errors like former vhcs project does. Sure development is now open to the cummunity but the release politics are not the way it should. Why is the software rc when not all new features are impleneted? In my opinion project should follow standards of software devlopment.

If i had learned to develop software i would like to help. Im only at home with linux systems, a little bash scripting and the essentials of php. Not enough to help develop such a complex application.

Sorry for this thread. I dont want to blame anybody and appreciate the work you guys do. I just want to show my point of view. Maybe i just awaited to much after the fork from vhcs.

If constructive criticism is unwanted i will shut my mouth from now.

[rsmithgs]

Maybe the versions given to releases initally were wrong, maybe RC1 should have been Beta one and the fact there are 3 RC2 versions maybe they should have been beta 2-4. But cannot change the past and re-versioning the releases now would cause confusion.

But as I see it this doesn't mean that RC3 should be released with missing features and known bugs.

On the other hand without a stable or even milestone release there is no testing in anything but testing environments. (That is generally speaking, I know there are those that are running RC's and the trunks as production servers, hell I even have a semi production box with a trunk on).

Is there some middle ground that could be agreed upon? Maybe a RC2D release with only the outstanding security issues fixed? The reason I propose this is the following:

1. Almost everyone wants the RC3 release to have the major bugs fixed and not released before then.

2. RC3 could be quite a way off from been launched due to Rats commitments.

3. Those that are running the last RC would have a version to upgrade to that would allow some production testing on the added features. (I'm guessing but I'm sure someone would be more willing to write a full upgrade document/script to upgrade between RC2C and RC2D then from RC2C to whatever the latest trunk is).

4. Would give a stepping stone between RC2C and RC3 which seem vastly different, may also be easy from an upgrade perspective. Rather then users upgrading directly from RC2C to RC3 they would upgrade to RC2D first.

5. May take most of the pressure away from launching the next release.

Please don't think I'm whining or trying to force change etc. Its merely a suggestion which would hopefully benefit everyone and the project as a whole

[Cube]

I also support the release of a RC2d. More people are ready to install a RC if there is a upgrade path and a upgrade script than a nightly which they have to update manually. And installing and testing RC2c is quite senseless.
I would also move AWStats (and perhaps the vhcs-ispcp-update-script) to a later release. Other projects also move features to later releases if they are blocking.

[Obi_Wan]

Maybe a new RC (may it be RC2d or RC3) could be just released to show that the project is still alive and to give the users, which use RC2c some bug fixes for their daily work.

I would even try to help with development but I don't know what the expectations are.

[RatS]

Obi_Wan Wrote:I would even try to help with development but I don't know what the expectations are.

Good Point Obi_Wan. We expect ability to work on your own. If you see a bug or know a solution: good: post it or send it. If we see you're really interested, you'll get your own SVN-access.

The lack of leadership will be eliminate soon.