[GNC-dev] branch-2.6

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GNC-dev] branch-2.6

John Ralls-2
Christian,

Your "branch-2.6" drew its first PR today, so I've deleted it to avoid any further confusion. Please consult with the rest of the team before you do anything like that again. If you'd like to maintain a 2.6 branch yourself you are of course free to fork GnuCash, though you should change the name and artwork to avoid confusion with the main project.

Regards,
John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Christian Stimming-4
Dear John,

I did notice that the 2.6 branch was deleted (meaning: "maint" is now the 3.x
branch), but I didn't understand the reasons and didn't see any discussion of
this decision. I have some requirements which I can meet most easily by just
continuing the 2.6 version of gnucash, but this in turn needed some occasional
commits there. For example, I'm still running Ubuntu 14.04 for reasons beyond
the scope of gnucash, and I haven't been able to build the 3.x branch on that
machine because of missing packages. At the same time the 2.6 branch met all
that I needed for everyday work, so I just stick to this.

Hence, I don't quite understand why there is such a strong requirement to
prohibit specifically any further existence of a 2.6 branch, and why you use
strong language to underline your point of view here. Also, it's a bit
puzzeling to me why you suggest me of all people to "change the name and
artwork" in case of a 2.6 branch - what have I missed here?? Where was the
discussion that led to this decision? Where was the decision process, if this
were the project's decision? Maybe some more liberality for other people and
their different requirements might be more suitable on your side, before
calling other people's requirements a "fantasy".

This particular pull request for the 2.6 branch showed up only one week after
I created that branch. To me, this looks like there are still more people
interested in such a branch. Of course, nothing new will happen there, but the
interest still exists.

For this reason I propose to keep some old 2.6 branch still up and running in
the gnucash repository. I would volunteer to act as an owner of that branch,
in case this is needed, but on the other hand we didn't need any such
designated branch maintainers for the most part. Further voices? objections?
ideas? Thanks.

Regards,

Christian


Am Samstag, 26. Mai 2018, 10:50:32 schrieb John Ralls:

> Christian,
>
> Your "branch-2.6" drew its first PR today, so I've deleted it to avoid any
> further confusion. Please consult with the rest of the team before you do
> anything like that again. If you'd like to maintain a 2.6 branch yourself
> you are of course free to fork GnuCash, though you should change the name
> and artwork to avoid confusion with the main project.
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

John Ralls-2

> On May 27, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> I did notice that the 2.6 branch was deleted (meaning: "maint" is now the 3.x
> branch), but I didn't understand the reasons and didn't see any discussion of
> this decision. I have some requirements which I can meet most easily by just
> continuing the 2.6 version of gnucash, but this in turn needed some occasional
> commits there. For example, I'm still running Ubuntu 14.04 for reasons beyond
> the scope of gnucash, and I haven't been able to build the 3.x branch on that
> machine because of missing packages. At the same time the 2.6 branch met all
> that I needed for everyday work, so I just stick to this.
>
> Hence, I don't quite understand why there is such a strong requirement to
> prohibit specifically any further existence of a 2.6 branch, and why you use
> strong language to underline your point of view here. Also, it's a bit
> puzzeling to me why you suggest me of all people to "change the name and
> artwork" in case of a 2.6 branch - what have I missed here?? Where was the
> discussion that led to this decision? Where was the decision process, if this
> were the project's decision? Maybe some more liberality for other people and
> their different requirements might be more suitable on your side, before
> calling other people's requirements a "fantasy".
>
> This particular pull request for the 2.6 branch showed up only one week after
> I created that branch. To me, this looks like there are still more people
> interested in such a branch. Of course, nothing new will happen there, but the
> interest still exists.
>
> For this reason I propose to keep some old 2.6 branch still up and running in
> the gnucash repository. I would volunteer to act as an owner of that branch,
> in case this is needed, but on the other hand we didn't need any such
> designated branch maintainers for the most part. Further voices? objections?
> ideas? Thanks.
>

Christian,

Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Geert and I decided after an IRC discussion that the simplest way to switch unstable to maint was to simply merge unstable onto maint and to remove the unstable branch, which is what we did. The 2.6.x releases are all tagged. Git isn't SVN, there's no need for a 2.6  branch to record what was in each release. The only reason for a separate branch is to develop a fork.

As you should be aware, we're very short of developer resources. We very simply cannot maintain two stable branches and still have time to also develop for the next major release. That's even more true now than it was 4 years ago after we stopped development on 2.4 because you and Phil Longstaff were regularly working on GnuCash then; both of you have left and no one has come forward at the same level of effort.

As far as I can tell there have never been two stable branches maintained in parallel, so the question about a policy decision falls on you, not me. Where was the discussion to revive and maintain the 2.6.x branch after the release of 3.0? I know the answer: There wasn't one. You *unilaterally* decided to impose your personal requirements on the rest of the team by creating a branch and implying on a bug report [1] that it was possible that we'd have future releases. Sorry, that's a fantasy. We don't have the resources. Your branch already caused someone to waste their time making a PR [2] in the mistaken belief that they were contributing to the project.

You're of course free to have a 2.6 branch in your own repository and to continue that development if that's what you need.

You can of course also distribute that work to the rest of the world, but there's a very practical problem with doing so if you call it GnuCash: You'd be delegating the support of your fork to the devs who are still working on GnuCash 3.x and towards GnuCash 4.x and they (we) don't have the resources to do that. The simple and obvious way to avoid that confusion would be for you to distribute your fork under a new name with its own "trade dress" and support mechanisms, hence my request.

As for building 3.x on Ubuntu 14.04, we run CI on Ubuntu 14.04 [3]. All of the needed packages are available except Googletest, for which you need only clone the source from GitHub and tell CMake where it is. You can use [3] as a setup script to quickly get a suitable build environment. If you need more help by all means ask.

Regards,
John Ralls



[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765846
[2] https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/pull/354
[3] https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/blob/maint/util/ci/ubuntu-14.04-docker
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Geert Janssens-4
Hi Christian,

John makes some valid points especially about the maintenance burden.

However on the other hand I have been musing supporting multiple stable
versions side by side. So in a way I do appreciate your proposal to maintain a
2.6 version.

Given the limited available time of the currently active developers I think
this can only happen if you indeed want to take responsibility of such a 2.6
branch (let's call it "extended support"). In that case I would be fine with
that even in the official gnucash repository.

Full responsibility for me means that you or other volunteers you find ensure
it doesn't increase our current workload. Which means I would expect you (or
other volunteers) to handle 2.6 related PR's, do the 2.6 releases when you
deem appropriate and be first level support for questions on 2.6.21+ releases.
If the issues are not specific to 2.6.21+, of course the questions can be
delegated back to gnucash support channels in general.

This will ask more commitment than just pushing a few commits useful to your
private projects on a branch in our repository. If that is more than you (or
someone else) can commit to (which could be perfectly reasonable) I do agree
with John the primary gnucash git repository is not the place to manage this -
or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the currently
active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something similar).

That's my 2c.

Best regards,

Geert

Op maandag 28 mei 2018 01:48:01 CEST schreef John Ralls:

> > On May 27, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > I did notice that the 2.6 branch was deleted (meaning: "maint" is now the
> > 3.x branch), but I didn't understand the reasons and didn't see any
> > discussion of this decision. I have some requirements which I can meet
> > most easily by just continuing the 2.6 version of gnucash, but this in
> > turn needed some occasional commits there. For example, I'm still running
> > Ubuntu 14.04 for reasons beyond the scope of gnucash, and I haven't been
> > able to build the 3.x branch on that machine because of missing packages.
> > At the same time the 2.6 branch met all that I needed for everyday work,
> > so I just stick to this.
> >
> > Hence, I don't quite understand why there is such a strong requirement to
> > prohibit specifically any further existence of a 2.6 branch, and why you
> > use strong language to underline your point of view here. Also, it's a
> > bit puzzeling to me why you suggest me of all people to "change the name
> > and artwork" in case of a 2.6 branch - what have I missed here?? Where
> > was the discussion that led to this decision? Where was the decision
> > process, if this were the project's decision? Maybe some more liberality
> > for other people and their different requirements might be more suitable
> > on your side, before calling other people's requirements a "fantasy".
> >
> > This particular pull request for the 2.6 branch showed up only one week
> > after I created that branch. To me, this looks like there are still more
> > people interested in such a branch. Of course, nothing new will happen
> > there, but the interest still exists.
> >
> > For this reason I propose to keep some old 2.6 branch still up and running
> > in the gnucash repository. I would volunteer to act as an owner of that
> > branch, in case this is needed, but on the other hand we didn't need any
> > such designated branch maintainers for the most part. Further voices?
> > objections? ideas? Thanks.
>
> Christian,
>
> Sorry that I wasn't clear.
>
> Geert and I decided after an IRC discussion that the simplest way to switch
> unstable to maint was to simply merge unstable onto maint and to remove the
> unstable branch, which is what we did. The 2.6.x releases are all tagged.
> Git isn't SVN, there's no need for a 2.6  branch to record what was in each
> release. The only reason for a separate branch is to develop a fork.
>
> As you should be aware, we're very short of developer resources. We very
> simply cannot maintain two stable branches and still have time to also
> develop for the next major release. That's even more true now than it was 4
> years ago after we stopped development on 2.4 because you and Phil
> Longstaff were regularly working on GnuCash then; both of you have left and
> no one has come forward at the same level of effort.
>
> As far as I can tell there have never been two stable branches maintained in
> parallel, so the question about a policy decision falls on you, not me.
> Where was the discussion to revive and maintain the 2.6.x branch after the
> release of 3.0? I know the answer: There wasn't one. You *unilaterally*
> decided to impose your personal requirements on the rest of the team by
> creating a branch and implying on a bug report [1] that it was possible
> that we'd have future releases. Sorry, that's a fantasy. We don't have the
> resources. Your branch already caused someone to waste their time making a
> PR [2] in the mistaken belief that they were contributing to the project.
>
> You're of course free to have a 2.6 branch in your own repository and to
> continue that development if that's what you need.
>
> You can of course also distribute that work to the rest of the world, but
> there's a very practical problem with doing so if you call it GnuCash:
> You'd be delegating the support of your fork to the devs who are still
> working on GnuCash 3.x and towards GnuCash 4.x and they (we) don't have the
> resources to do that. The simple and obvious way to avoid that confusion
> would be for you to distribute your fork under a new name with its own
> "trade dress" and support mechanisms, hence my request.
>
> As for building 3.x on Ubuntu 14.04, we run CI on Ubuntu 14.04 [3]. All of
> the needed packages are available except Googletest, for which you need
> only clone the source from GitHub and tell CMake where it is. You can use
> [3] as a setup script to quickly get a suitable build environment. If you
> need more help by all means ask.
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
>
>
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765846
> [2] https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/pull/354
> [3]
> https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash/blob/maint/util/ci/ubuntu-14.04-docker
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel




_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

John Ralls-2


> On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the currently
> active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something similar).
>

Git != SVN. There is *no reason* for personal branches in a git repository. Everyone has their own repository and can easily publish it on Github or similar services. That’s where personal branches belong.

Regards,
John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Christian Stimming-4
Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls:

> > On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the
> > currently active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something
> > similar).
>
> Git != SVN. There is *no reason* for personal branches in a git repository.
> Everyone has their own repository and can easily publish it on Github or
> similar services. That’s where personal branches belong.

But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's personal
repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My proposal is
to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who does the
housekeeping there, as discussed already.

Nevertheless thanks for the pointers about building on Ubuntu 14.04, I'll look
into this for the time being. I'd still like to have the 2.6 branch slightly
longer alive, though.

Regards,

Christian
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Geert Janssens-4
Op woensdag 30 mei 2018 22:31:03 CEST schreef Christian Stimming:

> Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls:
> > > On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the
> > > currently active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something
> > > similar).
> >
> > Git != SVN. There is *no reason* for personal branches in a git
> > repository.
> > Everyone has their own repository and can easily publish it on Github or
> > similar services. That’s where personal branches belong.
>
> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's personal
> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My proposal
> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who does
> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
>
> Nevertheless thanks for the pointers about building on Ubuntu 14.04, I'll
> look into this for the time being. I'd still like to have the 2.6 branch
> slightly longer alive, though.

Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy decision
request and check for a broader opinion there.

Geert


_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

John Ralls-2


> On Jun 2, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Geert Janssens <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Op woensdag 30 mei 2018 22:31:03 CEST schreef Christian Stimming:
>> Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018, 06:56:44 schrieb John Ralls:
>>>> On May 29, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Geert Janssens <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> or at best on a branch that clearly shows it's not maintained by the
>>>> currently active gnucash community (like a cstim-2.6 branch or something
>>>> similar).
>>>
>>> Git != SVN. There is *no reason* for personal branches in a git
>>> repository.
>>> Everyone has their own repository and can easily publish it on Github or
>>> similar services. That’s where personal branches belong.
>>
>> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's personal
>> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My proposal
>> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
>> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who does
>> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
>>
>> Nevertheless thanks for the pointers about building on Ubuntu 14.04, I'll
>> look into this for the time being. I'd still like to have the 2.6 branch
>> slightly longer alive, though.
>
> Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
> having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy decision
> request and check for a broader opinion there.

I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated, because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and won’t have time to devote to it.

If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so, but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official" GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the point of keeping it in the Github repository?

Regards,
John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Christian Stimming-4
Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls:

> >> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's
> >> personal
> >> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My
> >> proposal
> >> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
> >> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who
> >> does
> >> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
> >
> > Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
> > having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy
> > decision request and check for a broader opinion there.
>
> I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated,
> because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and
> because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and
> won’t have time to devote to it.
>
> If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so,
> but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official"
> GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own
> public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing
> list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the
> point of keeping it in the Github repository?

*sigh* Of course there is already a private fork, just as everyone else around
here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
However, that's not the point of our common project gnucash. "Official", as
you call it.

Talking of core policy decision: Ultimately the decision is about whether
there might be another 2.6.x release after the 2.6.20 in April, which in turn
is the reason for the existence of any 2.6 branch. John, it seems you decided
that there should not be any such release anymore under any circumstances. Had
this been a decision following our decision process,
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Decision_process
, I would have been the voice that raises a objection to that decision.

From my point of view, April isn't too far away and there might indeed be a
2.6.21 with some bugfixes. This is not a long-term commitment, just for maybe
another few months after the 2.6.20 release. How big is the risk in accepting
this objection and allow a potential 2.6.21 release to show up in the near
future? I'm surprised to see that prohibited from your side to begin with.

Regards,

Christian

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

John Ralls-2


> On Jun 2, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls:
>>>> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's
>>>> personal
>>>> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My
>>>> proposal
>>>> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
>>>> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who
>>>> does
>>>> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
>>>
>>> Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
>>> having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy
>>> decision request and check for a broader opinion there.
>>
>> I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated,
>> because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and
>> because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and
>> won’t have time to devote to it.
>>
>> If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so,
>> but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official"
>> GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own
>> public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing
>> list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the
>> point of keeping it in the Github repository?
>
> *sigh* Of course there is already a private fork, just as everyone else around
> here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
> https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
> However, that's not the point of our common project gnucash. "Official", as
> you call it.
>
> Talking of core policy decision: Ultimately the decision is about whether
> there might be another 2.6.x release after the 2.6.20 in April, which in turn
> is the reason for the existence of any 2.6 branch. John, it seems you decided
> that there should not be any such release anymore under any circumstances. Had
> this been a decision following our decision process,
> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Decision_process
> , I would have been the voice that raises a objection to that decision.
>
> From my point of view, April isn't too far away and there might indeed be a
> 2.6.21 with some bugfixes. This is not a long-term commitment, just for maybe
> another few months after the 2.6.20 release. How big is the risk in accepting
> this objection and allow a potential 2.6.21 release to show up in the near
> future? I'm surprised to see that prohibited from your side to begin with.

Christian,

Sigh yourself.

As I pointed out before, there is no new policy. As far as I can tell from the repo's history GnuCash has *never* maintained two stable branches. Ever. We're following that practice by end-of-lifing 2.6 with the release of 3.0. If there needs to be a core decision it's to change that policy, not to continue it.

BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend was broken on 2.6.20. It was released April 10.

How is it not a long-term commitment? There's no end to "just one more".

Regards,
John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Adrien Monteleone-2
Folks,

Perhaps my comments are not wanted, or out of place, but as an active user, someone who contributes a bit of assistance on the mailing list, and just someone who in general helps people less knowledgable with software selections and support, I have to ask, “Christian, did you consider the impact on complete newbies who might stumble upon and install, for whatever reason, the 2.6.x branch?” Or even someone who is still running it and contemplating an upgrade? As someone who helps out mom and pop businesses adopt GnuCash, the prospect of installing a full major version behind, bugs and all, less functionality, et cetera, and WASTING their time would leave me and them, nothing short of extremely perturbed when we eventually find out there is a more recent version. (*I* know now, but *they* won’t and they might not find me until afterwards, and what of others like me just entering this journey?) Sure, *I* can see where it would be ’nice’ to maintain an older version for certain ‘cut-off’ compatibility reasons, but those *are* the reason for a fork. (really, though, your initial stated reason was a compiling problem, which I though John answered adequately) I sure don’t want to have to repeatedly explain to people that 2.6.x is not supported if there is an ‘official’ branch in the Git repo available. (not that newbies would be looking there mind you, but one thing I’ve learned with this project is you can’t count on what you expect from how people ‘find’ you or install the software.)

I’m not a dev so I have a less than important perspective, but perhaps you should be aware, that there are some out here who aren’t devs who would not be appreciative of more than one official version that wasn’t actually an actively and officially supported version. I don’t know of any software project where that is acceptable. (If it isn’t supported, it isn’t ‘official’) It isn’t a matter of what is possible that can function or not, it’s a matter of expectation of what is supported and what isn’t. If the main devs don’t want to, or don’t have the resources to, support more than one version, then the answer is a fork. Please consider you might be making life unpleasant for more than just whatever you are willing to take one. You are obligating many others and you are creating an expectation you can’t even fully scope, much less fulfill. (or even at least initially be called to fulfill) Others are going have to have to deal with this ‘old version’ for as long as it exists, not just you.

Regards,
Adrien

 

> On Jun 2, 2018, at 7:28 PM, John Ralls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls:
>>>>> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's
>>>>> personal
>>>>> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My
>>>>> proposal
>>>>> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
>>>>> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who
>>>>> does
>>>>> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
>>>>
>>>> Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
>>>> having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy
>>>> decision request and check for a broader opinion there.
>>>
>>> I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated,
>>> because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and
>>> because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and
>>> won’t have time to devote to it.
>>>
>>> If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so,
>>> but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official"
>>> GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own
>>> public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing
>>> list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the
>>> point of keeping it in the Github repository?
>>
>> *sigh* Of course there is already a private fork, just as everyone else around
>> here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
>> https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
>> However, that's not the point of our common project gnucash. "Official", as
>> you call it.
>>
>> Talking of core policy decision: Ultimately the decision is about whether
>> there might be another 2.6.x release after the 2.6.20 in April, which in turn
>> is the reason for the existence of any 2.6 branch. John, it seems you decided
>> that there should not be any such release anymore under any circumstances. Had
>> this been a decision following our decision process,
>> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Decision_process
>> , I would have been the voice that raises a objection to that decision.
>>
>> From my point of view, April isn't too far away and there might indeed be a
>> 2.6.21 with some bugfixes. This is not a long-term commitment, just for maybe
>> another few months after the 2.6.20 release. How big is the risk in accepting
>> this objection and allow a potential 2.6.21 release to show up in the near
>> future? I'm surprised to see that prohibited from your side to begin with.
>
> Christian,
>
> Sigh yourself.
>
> As I pointed out before, there is no new policy. As far as I can tell from the repo's history GnuCash has *never* maintained two stable branches. Ever. We're following that practice by end-of-lifing 2.6 with the release of 3.0. If there needs to be a core decision it's to change that policy, not to continue it.
>
> BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend was broken on 2.6.20. It was released April 10.
>
> How is it not a long-term commitment? There's no end to "just one more".
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel


_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

GnuCash - Dev mailing list
+1 on all fronts. Thank you Adrien.

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Adrien Monteleone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Perhaps my comments are not wanted, or out of place, but as an active user, someone who contributes a bit of assistance on the mailing list, and just someone who in general helps people less knowledgable with software selections and support, I have to ask, “Christian, did you consider the impact on complete newbies who might stumble upon and install, for whatever reason, the 2.6.x branch?” Or even someone who is still running it and contemplating an upgrade? As someone who helps out mom and pop businesses adopt GnuCash, the prospect of installing a full major version behind, bugs and all, less functionality, et cetera, and WASTING their time would leave me and them, nothing short of extremely perturbed when we eventually find out there is a more recent version. (*I* know now, but *they* won’t and they might not find me until afterwards, and what of others like me just entering this journey?) Sure, *I* can see where it would be ’nice’ to maintain an older version for certain ‘cut-off’ compatibility reasons, but those *are* the reason for a fork. (really, though, your initial stated reason was a compiling problem, which I though John answered adequately) I sure don’t want to have to repeatedly explain to people that 2.6.x is not supported if there is an ‘official’ branch in the Git repo available. (not that newbies would be looking there mind you, but one thing I’ve learned with this project is you can’t count on what you expect from how people ‘find’ you or install the software.)
>
> I’m not a dev so I have a less than important perspective, but perhaps you should be aware, that there are some out here who aren’t devs who would not be appreciative of more than one official version that wasn’t actually an actively and officially supported version. I don’t know of any software project where that is acceptable. (If it isn’t supported, it isn’t ‘official’) It isn’t a matter of what is possible that can function or not, it’s a matter of expectation of what is supported and what isn’t. If the main devs don’t want to, or don’t have the resources to, support more than one version, then the answer is a fork. Please consider you might be making life unpleasant for more than just whatever you are willing to take one. You are obligating many others and you are creating an expectation you can’t even fully scope, much less fulfill. (or even at least initially be called to fulfill) Others are going have to have to deal with this ‘old version’ for as long as it exists, not just you.
>
> Regards,
> Adrien
>
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2018, at 7:28 PM, John Ralls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls:
>>>>>> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's
>>>>>> personal
>>>>>> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My
>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
>>>>>> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
>>>>> having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy
>>>>> decision request and check for a broader opinion there.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated,
>>>> because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and
>>>> because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and
>>>> won’t have time to devote to it.
>>>>
>>>> If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so,
>>>> but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official"
>>>> GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own
>>>> public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing
>>>> list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the
>>>> point of keeping it in the Github repository?
>>>
>>> *sigh* Of course there is already a private fork, just as everyone else around
>>> here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
>>> https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
>>> However, that's not the point of our common project gnucash. "Official", as
>>> you call it.
>>>
>>> Talking of core policy decision: Ultimately the decision is about whether
>>> there might be another 2.6.x release after the 2.6.20 in April, which in turn
>>> is the reason for the existence of any 2.6 branch. John, it seems you decided
>>> that there should not be any such release anymore under any circumstances. Had
>>> this been a decision following our decision process,
>>> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Decision_process
>>> , I would have been the voice that raises a objection to that decision.
>>>
>>> From my point of view, April isn't too far away and there might indeed be a
>>> 2.6.21 with some bugfixes. This is not a long-term commitment, just for maybe
>>> another few months after the 2.6.20 release. How big is the risk in accepting
>>> this objection and allow a potential 2.6.21 release to show up in the near
>>> future? I'm surprised to see that prohibited from your side to begin with.
>>
>> Christian,
>>
>> Sigh yourself.
>>
>> As I pointed out before, there is no new policy. As far as I can tell from the repo's history GnuCash has *never* maintained two stable branches. Ever. We're following that practice by end-of-lifing 2.6 with the release of 3.0. If there needs to be a core decision it's to change that policy, not to continue it.
>>
>> BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend was broken on 2.6.20. It was released April 10.
>>
>> How is it not a long-term commitment? There's no end to "just one more".
>>
>> Regards,
>> John Ralls
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

Christian Stimming-4
In reply to this post by John Ralls-2
Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 17:28:27 schrieb John Ralls:
> > there is already a private fork, just as everyone else
> > around here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
> > https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
>
> BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend was broken on
> 2.6.20. It was released April 10.

Dear John,

yes I confused the numbers here. There was a 2.6.21 in April. I would happily
switch to the 3.0 branch (git-maint) on my system, as soon as I see for myself
that it is up and running on my (still old) ubuntu 14.04 system.

However, after I eventually was able to build and run the newer branch [1], it
turns out to crash in the register on every normal usage. Of course I've filed
a bug on that one [2] (with gtk-3.10.8 that is), and I will continue looking
into resolving this problem myself, too. However, until we are able to resolve
this problem, my guess is that on ubuntu 14.04, there is no 3.0.x version that
is usable. Can someone report otherwise? If yes, I would happily discuss in
detail the steps that I'm missing.

Until then, I would again propose to keep a 2.6 branch alive for a few more
months, so that a potential 2.6.22 release with minor bugfixes might be
released as well for systems on the age of ubuntu 14.04.

Best Regards,

Christian

[1] For several days, I was stuck at the error at start-up "Undefined
variable: gnc-build-userdata-path" that got reported also by e.g. Herbert
Thoma here. For future reference: The solution was to remove any instance of
an old (2.6) gnucash from the library path both at build time and at run time.

[2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=796556

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)

John Ralls-2


> On 10. Jun 2018, at 13:41, Christian Stimming <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 17:28:27 schrieb John Ralls:
>>> there is already a private fork, just as everyone else
>>> around here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
>>> https://github.com/cstim/gnucash/tree/branch-2.6
>>
>> BTW, there's already a 2.6.21 because the MySQL backend was broken on
>> 2.6.20. It was released April 10.
>
> Dear John,
>
> yes I confused the numbers here. There was a 2.6.21 in April. I would happily
> switch to the 3.0 branch (git-maint) on my system, as soon as I see for myself
> that it is up and running on my (still old) ubuntu 14.04 system.
>
> However, after I eventually was able to build and run the newer branch [1], it
> turns out to crash in the register on every normal usage. Of course I've filed
> a bug on that one [2] (with gtk-3.10.8 that is), and I will continue looking
> into resolving this problem myself, too. However, until we are able to resolve
> this problem, my guess is that on ubuntu 14.04, there is no 3.0.x version that
> is usable. Can someone report otherwise? If yes, I would happily discuss in
> detail the steps that I'm missing.
>
> Until then, I would again propose to keep a 2.6 branch alive for a few more
> months, so that a potential 2.6.22 release with minor bugfixes might be
> released as well for systems on the age of ubuntu 14.04.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian
>
> [1] For several days, I was stuck at the error at start-up "Undefined
> variable: gnc-build-userdata-path" that got reported also by e.g. Herbert
> Thoma here. For future reference: The solution was to remove any instance of
> an old (2.6) gnucash from the library path both at build time and at run time.
>
> [2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=796556
>

Christian,

Your crash appears to be a dupe of a Gtk bug, details and a possible work-around on your bug report.

You seem to have missed out that we've changed the version system, there's no 3.0.x at all. There was 3.0, the current release is 3.1, and the next one will be 3.2.

I'm not interested in continually re-arguing further 2.6.x releases.

Regards,
John Ralls

_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel