[horde] [dev] Horde 6 vs. Horde 5.3

[Paco Orozco]

Hi,

We have a lot of users that have started using the calenda. The bugs and
pending improvements of the current horde version are producing a lot of
pressure to us to find an alternative.

Having a H5.3 version, with the development Kronolith version, will help
us a lot. This could reduce the pressure from our users.

I understand the cost that this entails, as refactoring and changes in
the use of libraries and code are necessary to attract more developers
to the community. Without them, as you say, it is difficult to adapt to
the speed that users demands.

However, I think very necessary to publish the H5.3 in a relatively
short period.

I'll be following this discussion, I think it's a good decission to ask
feedback.

Come on!
Paco

On 15/06/16 17:57, Jan Schneider wrote:
> This discussion is actually better taking place on the horde mailing
> list, since we want feedback from our community too, so moving it there.
> 
> Zitat von Michael J Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org>:
> 
>> Quoting Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> since we have been asked recently when to expect Horde 6, and what
>>> could be done to speed up its release, I'd like to discuss an
>>> alternative option to release Horde 5.3 first.
>>>
>>> Many new features have gone into master since the Horde 5.2 release,
>>> few of them sponsored by clients or contributed by the community. The
>>> expectation to see those features in a stable release within a
>>> foreseeable timeframe is more than justified.
>>>
>>> We could speed up the Horde 6 release by additional sponsoring, but
>>> it's not only a matter of money, but also a matter of developer
>>> resources. With Michael and me being the only remaining active core
>>> developers at the moment, we rather lack developer time. Especially
>>> for core development like infrastructure stuff, namespace refactoring
>>> etc. that are not easy for contributors to jump in.
>>>
>>> AFAIK we don't have any BC breaks in master yet, at least none that
>>> couldn't be solved with bumped dependencies. So doing a 5.3 release
>>> should work. Michael, please correct me if I'm missing something.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I actually had a similar email in my drafts folder for a while now,
>> trying to compose the argument to do this or a "quick" Horde 6 release
>> as-is - without the repo split.
>>
>> All in all, I'm mostly for it, with the following concerns:
>>
>> IMP in master is already labeled as 7 (not that this can't be
>> changed). There is a slight API change in IMP, but from what I
>> understand from Michael S.  the data that is now no longer available
>> isn't data ever meant for public consumption anyway (though it IS
>> still a BC break). To my knowledge the only Horde code that had used
>> this bit of information is ActiveSync, but it was refactored to use
>> the new data anyway.
>>
>> Then there is the fact that the basic and minimal views were
>> completely removed in IMP and this might be too big a change to
>> include in a point release.
>>
>> A point release will definitely hold up the work needed to get Horde 6
>> rolling. The need to support the versions we need to, plus the lack of
>> time will hold up the repo split.
>>
>> My biggest gripe would be the delay in being able to start ActiveSync
>> refactoring. There are a lot of things that need to be changed to make
>> it more attractive to other developers. This might be a blessing in
>> disguise though, since it IS so much work, getting an interim point
>> release out now would prevent my refactoring from holding up any major
>> release.
>>
>> All that being said, I think the need to get Kronolith out, with the
>> oft-requested fixes for scheduling, probably trumps all other concerns
>> at this point, so I would say lets do the 5.3 release, with the
>> understanding that nothing new gets added until the repo split happens.
> 
> 

-- 
Paco Orozco (paco.orozco at upcnet.es)
SIP: paco.orozco at upcnet.es
Service Orchestration
UPCNet
Edifici Vértex - Pl. Eusebi Güell, 6
Teléfon centraleta: 93.40.11600
GPG Key ID: 0x3EDEC0AC

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.horde.org/archives/horde/attachments/20160616/87fbd55a/attachment.bin>