Yes this is probably a good idea to proceed like that.
Stef
On Nov 14, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
> If a backport happens it can mean two things to a user:
>
> POSITIV: a valueable addition that makes an already released version better to use (fix, optimization, ...)
> NEGATIV: a possible broken API introduced by a backport
>
> It's not the best solution we currently have. When a new user downloads a "Pharo2.0-win.zip"
> from http://files.pharo.org/platform directly after the "big announcement" and half year
> later (after backports happened) he may be surprised since it results in different images
> and may lead to problems. Not directly in the image but it can happen when loading other
> packages that could be broken by the backport.
>
>
> On one side we want a "reproducible" reliable version announced as "official release" at one point
> in time on the other hand we want to be able to backport fixes and make the experience better
> so Pharo 2.0 is not really fix.
>
>
> IMHO the solution is very easy: we can still communicate about "Pharo 3.0" or "Pharo 2.0" but
> for the artefacts (in the build folder) and on the download page we should provide the
> FULL VERSION:
>
> � MAJOR.MINOR-BUILD
>
> As you know we already use this for our development: the build is our update number which is also
> easily reproducible (we have release mails like for 20627) and in the near future with projects
> like PharoLauncher �https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/PharoLauncher/
> it will be even easier to get a specific image version.
>
>
> So "Pharo2.0 Latest update: #20627" in the about box already means "Pharo 2.0-627", so we
> should have a "Pharo 2.0-627-win.zip" for the download to make it more clear. This way
> people could spot the difference to old downloads more easily.
>
> One often see's download pages of open source projects stating "Download latest here" and
> "Download previous versions here" with a list of older releases.
> By using the Major.minor-build like "Pharo 2.0-627" people could pick up what they want.
>
> My proposal: lets use the update number more often. It would also help when people report bugs
> to know about the specific update number.
>
> It would also avoid the "I have a problem in Pharo 2.0" and "the one from last year or the
> newer one with the backports?" cycle ;)
>
> Thx
> T.
>
>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. November 2013 um 20:05 Uhr
>> Von: "Noury Bouraqadi" <bouraqadi@gmail.com>
>> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
>> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] A thought about backporting
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a thought I want to share with you.
>> Please don't misunderstand me. I'm really valuing the effort that people put into pharo, but I think sharing this will hopefully result in improving our system.
>>
>> I believe that back-porting is a false good idea. Consider simply this question: what is the 2.0 release? The latest version or the one release this summer?
>> There are valuable bugfixes and enhancements that were integrated in the latest 2.0. But, I believe that this may cause some frustration among users since the API/features might evolve a bit (it happened to me, and it seems that I'm not the only one).
>>
>> Rather than changing 2.0, I suggest to introduce 2.1 if the community really believes that 2.0 isn't good enough.
>> Same for future versions. Once we are confident enough with a RC, we should freeze it. Only critical bugfixes should be backported in yet another minor version.
>>
>> Noury
>> Ecole des Mines de Douai
>> http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>