[dev] Horde 6 vs. Horde 5.3

[Jan Schneider]

Zitat von Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:

> Zitat von Michael J Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org>:
>
>> Quoting Ralf Lang <lang at b1-systems.de>:
>>
>>> Am 15.06.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Thomas Jarosch:
>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 15. June 2016 11:16:02 Michael J Rubinsky wrote:
>>>>>> The flipside is, that:
>>>>>> - Horde 6 will delay even further
>>>>>> - we won't be able to do any refactoring, e.g. switching to namespaces
>>>>>> - we won't have a repository split that would make the libraries
>>>>>> more attractive, e.g. by being available via composer/packagist and
>>>>>> thus attracting external developers
>>>>>> - we won't be able to do long-anticipated BC breaks that currently
>>>>>> hinder some development
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion is open.
>>>> doing a "maintenance" release before Horde 6 is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> As MJR mentioned, the removal of the basic view in IMP 7 is a bit  
>>>> worrisome
>>>> for a "point release". On the other hand, if the next release  
>>>> would be Horde
>>>> 6 and users were still using those views, they'll complain, too :)
>>>> At least I'm using the minimal view, but hey, let's move forward.
>>>>
>>>> Could we branch off the IMP view changes
>>>> or would that be too much git surgery?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>> I may be wrong here - I think there can be an IMP 7 on top of Horde 5.3
>>> - which would also support IMP 6 with basic views if you need to have
>>> them. Not sure if the Horde 6 IMP would be IMP 7.1 or IMP 8 then.
>>
>> While I don't think there is any technical reason this can't be  
>> done, historically we have always had coordinated major releases -  
>> that is, the major version numbers were always increased together  
>> across the applications and indicated a break in backwards  
>> compatibility with the previous major version line.

Having thought more about this today, I think this what we should do.  
That is, having IMP released as 7.0, even though we "just" release  
Horde 5.3. There's a technical reason too, because at least for the  
groupware bundles we can enforce to keep on IMP 6 for Groupware 5.3.  
People won't accidentally lose the basic view with a regular upgrade.  
Of course that also means we need to release Groupware 5.3 and 6.0 in  
parallel, so people can have IMP 6.2 or 7.0 in their bundles. Or is  
this going to become too complicated?

A side-effect would be that the  Groupware major versions are no  
longer in sync with the Horde major versions. We could fix this by  
releasing Horde 7 instead of Horde 6 once it's time for that.

>> Either way, it's still the current code in Git master that would be  
>> released whether we call it IMP 7.0 or IMP 6.3. The difference  
>> would be what happens with the rest of the code base - if we can  
>> begin refactoring (and breaking BC) before this release (which  
>> would make it Horde 6/IMP 7) or if we should wait for the major  
>> refactoring (and make this release Horde 5.3/IMP 6.3)
>>
>>> I am particularly interested in the kronolith upgrade (external
>>> organizer etc) but if there are finite work packages in the library
>>> stack (like conversion to namespaces which would be a large, but very
>>> schematic task) I think I or a B1 colleague could step in.
>
> Alternatively we can try to identify the applications that people  
> wait most for regarding new features, and only release those. I.e.  
> we could release Kronolith 4.3 and still stick with IMP 6.2.



-- 
Jan Schneider
The Horde Project
http://www.horde.org/