bugzilla 3.0...

MattyT mattyt-spam at tpg.com.au
Sat Dec 13 10:11:20 UTC 2003

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 04:27, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Perhaps there should be - but what milestone could we pass that would be 
> worthy of the jump? We've done so much in the past in small increments 
> that it might seem odd.
> Perhaps one of:
> - full templatisation
> - running under mod_perl
> might be suitable...

I think if you need to think about whether a feature is appropriate for
bumping to 3.0, it isn't.  We've got so much going on that I don't think
arbitrarily choosing a feature is a good idea.  Why do we need to bump
the version number to 3.0 anyway?  Sounds like a cheap marketing ploy to
me.  We should be happy to release 2.88 if we're lucky enough to get
that far.

I think that 3.0 should not be related to the feature set, so much as
an opportunity to drop a large amount of backward compatibility cruft. 
IIRC, the bump to 2.0 was due to either the rewrite to Perl or the
release to the public.  Neither of these is feature based.

By backward compatibility, I don't mean so much any user-facing page
cruft, but administrator things like old schema support in checksetup,
and direct sendmail support.  What I mean by checksetup is that the only
acceptable way to upgrade from 2.X to 3.X is via an upgrade from 2.last
to 3.X.  This means we can drop a large amount of schema upgrade code in
checksetup, all the code that goes from 2.<last to 2.last, or at least
move it into another script.

         Matthew Tuck: Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy        
 My Short Autobiography: 1985 Grade Bin Monitor 1990 Class Clown Award
1992 Awarded Most Likely To Spontaneously Combust 1996 Crowned Galactic
         Emperor 1998 Released From Smith Psychiatric Hospital

More information about the developers mailing list