Questions about new development strategy
David-Andrew
Andrew Eddie
On 28 April 2011 05:11, David-Andrew <chillcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Questions
> Ok, so we switch to the new Joomla! development strategy. Which means we get
> a new release every six months, as it is a time based release cycle. We will
> have 2 STS (standard term support) versions, and then one LTS (long term
> support version), and then 2 STS again. A standard term support version is
> supported (bug and security patch releases) until 7 months after its release
> date, an LTS is supported until 18 months after its release date. Am I
> correct until now?
Almost. The LTS will actually be supported for 21 months (that will
be the case for 1.8).
> Isn't the support lifetime of an LTS release 15 months? Two times 6 months +
> 3 months extra? Why am I missing 3 months?
Because 15 months is counted from the release of 1.6.
> So, a certain version does not get any updates any more after the support
> lifetime (see the above link) has ended?
That's the intention, but stranger things have happened (cf PHP EOL'd
then released a quick fix).
> For example, if a security issue is
> found in Joomla! 1.7.5 in February 2012, there will be no Joomla! 1.7.6,
> only an update for Joomla! 1.8 if the issue is also present there. Do I
> understand it correctly?
That's the intention, but a call would be made on the merits of the
security issue and the upgrade process to the new version. If, for
example, the upgrade to 1.8 took a few steps it may be reasonable to
release a 1.7 point version if people haven't had time to upgrade.
> Joomla! 1.5 is an LTS release (not a STS as mentioned at the above link),
> 1.6 and 1.7 will be STS, and the January 2012 release will be a LTS again.
> Correct?
That's the intention, yes.
> The document mentions "A direct upgrade path will be provided for
> consecutive standard support releases and for consecutive long term support
> releases. Any other combination will not be officially supported." So this
> means, people can upgrade from LTS 1.5 to LTS 1.8? And from STS 1.6 to STS
> 1.7. But not from STS 1.7 to LTS 1.8?
I suspect that we will always have the mandatory 1.5 to 1.6 upgrade
just because of the changes involved but that is simply a function of
how smart the internal upgrader will be. From then on each point
version will upgrade, so 1.7 to 1.8 is certainly covered and the
intention would be for a path to be provided for 1.8 to 1.11
> Does "A direct upgrade path will be provided" mean the current core
> developers will guarantee (its a strong word, but you known what I mean I
> hope) a upgrade or migration tool?
There are no core developers, so no they can't guarantee that. Even
thought the PLT would say they'd like the Joomla development community
to provide some feature, it doesn't always mean someone will actually
do it :)
> Or will this be left to non-core
> developers as it is with the 1.5 to 1.6 migration?
See previous statement - there's no such thing as a core developer :)
> Will it be possible for
> users to migrate from 1.5 to 1.8/the January 2012 LTS release with a tool
> that has official support?
If the people contributing to the migrator/upgrader support that jump,
then it will be possible.
> Then about the "Backward Compatibility Support" section in the above link
> and continued
> here http://developer.joomla.org/strategy/backward-compatibility.html. I
> think its very clear. On the last mentioned link at the bottom there is an
> FAQ "I am in a large organization that wants to use Joomla! for an
> enterprise site." Would the Joomla! core agree that it might be smart for
> others to also primarily focus on the LTS releases?
I think things will get "easier" over time as we slot into the new
cycle. For 1.5 in particular, there is a lot of catching up to do for
both the developer and web site administrator community. The STS and
LTS scheme is provided so that site owners do have a choice depending
on how responsive to change the management of your website is. Which
cycle you focus on depends on your "business" yes but if the developer
community for extensions that you use is keeping pace, and your budget
provides for it, there's also no reason why a large organisation can't
keep pace with the bleeding edge version.
> I was wondering if, for
> example, a book writer would call his book "Joomla! book", and focus on an
> LTS release in it (off course also explain the development strategy), even
> if a STS release was already available. The book would then only need to be
> updated when the next LTS release is released. The same may apply to people
> developing in dept Joomla! training materials or maybe some extension
> developers that (a) have a large extension and (b) want to use the Joomla!
> framework.
The strategy I would probably employ, since I write material myself,
is, yes, focus on the LTS but bring out the "2nd edition" with a STS
supplement. Eg, write the "1.8 book" then bring out the 2nd edition
to coincide with the release of 2.10. Something like that.
> ====
> Well, Ill keep it at this for now, I am really looking forward to your
> explanations!
Hope that helps a bit.
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers
> Regards
> David
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>
Sander
David-Andrew
David-Andrew
Matt Thomas
You might some answers in the thread at https://groups.google.com/d/topic/joomlabugsquad/-rIZYpwJBag/discussion as well. Thanks for your hard work!
Best,
Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server
David-Andrew
Andrew Eddie
> Wow, thanks for your reply. Makes more sense now! Still a few questions
> left.
> Do I understand correctly that LTS support lifetime can differ? Sometimes 15
> months, for 1.8 it will be 21 months?
No - there's actually no "15 months", that's just the time we quote
from the release of 1.6 (just as 1.8 would be released EOL 15 months
after 1.9). The only reason we do that is because 1.6 took 3 years
(not 6 months) to deliver.
> Is yes, is there a minimal support lifetime for LTS versions and STS
> versions we can communicate to users?
LTS is a fixed 21 months at this time according to the policy.
> So, what you are saying is: Ok, so there is no guarantee that someone can
> migrate/upgrade to a new STS or LTS version, but the intention. We will have
> to see if someone takes up the task to make this intention "real", right?
> Might be an idea to communicate this clearly in the development strategy (or
> the document we are discussing about in the other topic) so users don't
> expect that they can always upgrade (until they really can because intention
> turned to something "real"), as they expect it now.
Well, there's strategy and then there's delivery. It gets out of hand
if you start including "but if we don't achieve that" everywhere.
> You are also saying that upgrading/migrating will become less of an issue
> with the new development strategy (if users use 1.6 onward), and that sounds
> logical. Did I understand that correctly?
Certainly within the "minor" increments (that's 1.6 to 1.7 to 1.8 and
so on). Major updates (version 1.x to 2.x) are a different kettle of
fish and nobody can predict what they will entail.
> Then, another question. Are there more differences between STS and LTS
> versions, besides the support lifetime? For example, would huge changes be
> saved up for an LTS release, or could we expect them in STS releases also
> and is the ONLY difference the support lifetime? The previous solution we
> discussed about the books and materials etc. would be easier if STS releases
> would have a minimal impact.
The differences are completely community driven. For example, 1.7
could include nothing but bug fixes to Joomla 1.6.3 if there are no
features or improvements submitted for consideration. Conversely, it
could include hundreds of Easter eggs if the developer community
contributions have been particularly active. Or, you can have any
scenario in between. There is no real way to predict what the "next
version" will look like until about a month or two before it's
release. You might get some hints from the Joomla Feature Tracker but
that's about it.
I can say in all likelihood that one major change in 1.7 will be the
physical separation of the Joomla Platform from the CMS. To the end
user, it won't seem any different but organisationally there will be
two separate teams building out the Platform, an one to build out the
CMS. Of course, you can work in either team or both depending on what
you are interested in. The Platform will released every 3 months and
the CMS every 6 months at which time it will choose to upgrade the
platform ... or not.
The biggest impact here is the toys that developers will have at their
disposal. For example, the 11.1 version of the platform (that stands
for the first release of 2011) will include database drivers for
Microsoft SQL server and Azure (drivers only, the CMS won't
necessarily work on those engines ... yet). It also includes a major
improvement to the JLog class. As time goes on, more things will be
added and more people will start using it outside of just the Joomla
CMS (consultants will be able to build CLI applications and daemons
and a host of other spiffy things). That's why it's on a 3 months
release cycle, because the CMS is not driving the platform anymore,
the platform is driving the CMS which is the way it should be.
I hope that helps clear some of the fog around what's happening at the
moment. It's very exciting times.
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
> That's it for now!
>
elin
ssnobben
I think the combination with open source but with committed enterprise
contribution is a key factor and letting them in with the right
premises. Joomla leadership must deal with a strategic model how
Joomla should achieve these future goals so it will survive this
battle for users that choose between Drupal, Wordpress or Joomla also
for larger organizations that need more security and confidence.
One idea is to find a model that make companies involved in many ways
with incentives coming from Joomla itself not only from some 3pds. How
can this be done in an attractive model for all involved?
Drupal Dries have their own commercial "concubator" Aquia
http://buytaert.net/focusing-on-all-drupal-competitors that contribute
back and they also earn money at the same time creating commercial
confidence to the commercial world and have skilled people that
contribute as a whole.
They seem to be quite successful see below.
Would it not be possible to create a central virtual Joomla commercial
company with similar structure ready for larger commitments and
projects? With clear leadership who is in charge and a working
organization? Where team members can commit their time and make
structure for that as a start?
Then also smaller 3pds can ask for these resources when they need them
for larger projects. Create a win/win situation.
Aquia have been successful and grow well and of course this is
attractive news for Drupal and also Acquia.
"This week many of us at Acquia will be on an epic trip to the
Caribbean.
Venture backed start-ups set aggressive goals. At Acquia, our goal for
2010 was to increase 2009 revenue by 250%. No small goal, no small
feat. In the beginning of 2010, most people in the company were
skeptical that we would make the goal. Jokingly, we set a "stretch
goal": if we increased revenues by more than 450%, we'd do something
crazy. We decided that we would fly the entire staff and their
significant others to some place warm."
I think they are 120 people now there helping with Drupal.
( Another thing is why we lost the Google Summer Code projects bcs
that could also have been attracting a lot of students and core
contribution for the Joomla core. Drupal have gain a lot from that as
well. I would be nice if somebody knows why this happened maybe
explained that in the Joomla forum bcs this year Joomla is not
accepted as GSOC 2011 either. If you know the reason Elin I would be
good if you explain that for the Joomla community as well)
Well this is some ideas but our leadership have to take care of these
and other important question about how to manage Joomla for the best
possible future.
rgds
Amy Stephen
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:50:01 PM UTC-5, Andrew Eddie wrote:
The biggest impact here is the toys that developers will have at their
disposal. For example, the 11.1 version of the platform (that stands
for the first release of 2011) will include database drivers for
Microsoft SQL server and Azure (drivers only, the CMS won't
necessarily work on those engines ... yet). It also includes a major
improvement to the JLog class. As time goes on, more things will be
added and more people will start using it outside of just the Joomla
CMS (consultants will be able to build CLI applications and daemons
and a host of other spiffy things). That's why it's on a 3 months
release cycle, because the CMS is not driving the platform anymore,
the platform is driving the CMS which is the way it should be.
That is the first first specifics I have seen on what 11.1 might include - and with it, a bit of a roadmap. That is great to see!
It's hard to follow all of the various types of communication. Those following the framework list might not see this either.
Can that be turned into a short post for a community blog? Or, added as an update to the magazine? Perhaps the new communications team help with that?
Thanks, Andrew, appreciate it. I completely agree - this is exciting!
Sam Moffatt
less than what many in the community expected. However they do at
least contribute back and appear to be a sustainable enterprise which
is a positive move.
Joomla! applied and was rejected a few years ago partially due to
excessive negative publicity from third party Joomla! community sites
that had numerous conspiracy theories about Google taking over the
project. Google quite rightly didn't want that sort of negativity
associated with them and their support through GSOC. In 2011 the PLT
wasn't able to contribute time and felt that getting the platform
project up and the next few CMS releases done to be a more important
goal instead of trying to do all of that AND manage a few students
(which is a time consuming task for mentors and even more so for the
administrators; in 2009 Joomla! received over 150 proposals which all
have to be read and categorised - it took me an entire weekend to get
through them all). Hopefully by 2012 we will have everything at a much
better organised and be in a less transitionary position than we are
and will be able to make better use of student resources.
Cheers,
Sam Moffatt
http://pasamio.id.au
ssnobben
On 2 Maj, 04:07, Sam Moffatt <pasa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The feel I get from some Drupal people is that Acquia contributes back
> less than what many in the community expected. However they do at
> least contribute back and appear to be a sustainable enterprise which
> is a positive move.
>
> Joomla! applied and was rejected a few years ago partially due to
> excessive negative publicity from third party Joomla! community sites
> that had numerous conspiracy theories about Google taking over the
> project. Google quite rightly didn't want that sort of negativity
> associated with them and their support through GSOC. In 2011 the PLT
> wasn't able to contribute time and felt that getting the platform
> project up and the next few CMS releases done to be a more important
> goal instead of trying to do all of that AND manage a few students
> (which is a time consuming task for mentors and even more so for the
> administrators; in 2009 Joomla! received over 150 proposals which all
> have to be read and categorised - it took me an entire weekend to get
> through them all). Hopefully by 2012 we will have everything at a much
> better organised and be in a less transitionary position than we are
> and will be able to make better use of student resources.
>
> Cheers,
>
> > Very well written Elin.
>
> > I think the combination with open source but with committed enterprise
> > contribution is a key factor and letting them in with the right
> > premises. Joomla leadership must deal with a strategic model how
> > Joomla should achieve these future goals so it will survive this
> > battle for users that choose between Drupal, Wordpress or Joomla also
> > for larger organizations that need more security and confidence.
>
> > One idea is to find a model that make companies involved in many ways
> > with incentives coming from Joomla itself not only from some 3pds. How
> > can this be done in an attractive model for all involved?
>
> > Drupal Dries have their own commercial "concubator" Aquia
Amy Stephen
Acquia doesn't give back to Drupal?
The PLT plan to be more organized next year?
hehe! Sorry, Sam, that just read funny.