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

Jan Schneider jan at horde.org
Fri Jun 24 09:23:40 UTC 2016

Zitat von Michael J Rubinsky <mrubinsk at horde.org>:

> Quoting Steffen <skhorde at smail.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-sieg.de>:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Paco Orozco wrote:
>>> 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.
>> that is one major point here as well. Users started to use  
>> Kronolith widely (more than I expected, in fact), because of  
>> ActiveSync and Cal/CardDAV.
>> Besides client-side sync problems, one of the largest problem  
>> currently is - don't take me wrong here - automatically sent  
>> notifications for sync'ed actions. Because many users receive  
>> appointments from Exchange, for which they do *not* want to sent  
>> notifications to attendees again, because those are not "filtered  
>> away" automatically by Exchange, but presented to the users as  
>> message. For what reason ever. I thought Outlook / Exchange would  
>> automagically accept those messages as reply and change the  
>> attendee status of the appointment.
>>>>>> The flipside is, that:
>>>>>> - Horde 6 will delay even further
>> Better stable than early
> So, is this a vote for Horde 5.3 or Horde 6? The code base that will  
> be Horde 5.3 is the same code base that would become Horde 6. So  
> technically it will be released as stable earlier if we choose to  
> release a Horde 5.3.
>>>>> IMP in master is already labeled as 7 (not that this can't be
>>>>> 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.
>> hm. some users do use Basic view here, because they do not use  
>> JavaScript capable browsers for several purposes.
> So, it sounds like people will miss the basic view. Since this is  
> already removed Git, a new IMP release, be it a point or major  
> release, would mean the loss of this view. Jan had suggested only  
> releasing a subset of the applications in the 5.3 release cycle to  
> deal with this. I would prefer a completely synchronized release  
> since there has been so many changes/improvements to IMP. What about  
> we release it, loudly announce the loss of basic view, but do NOT  
> include it in the Webmail bundle so admins using the bundle at least  
> would have to explicitly request the upgrade?

This sounds like a political solution to a technical problem, but I'm  
afraid that the available technology might make this a sham solution.  
I'm pretty sure that if you run a PEAR upgrade on the bundle, and the  
bundle is indeed upgraded, the PEAR installer will upgrade all  
dependencies too, if possible. Even if a higher version is not  
explicitly set in the dependencies. We need to check this at least.
That would mean the people will have to upgrade the components  
individually, and might miss any updates we provide with the actual  
bundle code. And at least the shiny new bundle version in the  
interface. ;-)

>>>>> 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.

Jan Schneider
The Horde Project

More information about the horde mailing list