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

[Torben Dannhauer]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: horde [mailto:horde-bounces at lists.horde.org] Im Auftrag von Jan
Schneider
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 17:58
An: horde at lists.horde.org
Betreff: Re: [horde] [dev] Horde 6 vs. Horde 5.3

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.


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

--
Horde mailing list
Frequently Asked Questions: http://horde.org/faq/ To unsubscribe, mail:
horde-unsubscribe at lists.horde.org


Any new decisions on this issue?

Thanks,
Torben