--
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.
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
Andy,
Would there be any major disadvantages to adding a 3.3 and/or 3.4 release as well? I'm more than happy to recognise that its a bad idea, if it is one.
Best,
Matt
Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
1. There is not enough time between LTS releases. That is mostly driven by cost to migrate to the next LTS. 18 months was never long enough for people to build a site and run it before needing a major change. Ideally this is more like 3 years.
2. Migration between major versions is too hard. Most feel that the migration between 1.5 and 2.5 is the new gold standard for what it will be like moving from 2.5 to 3.5. As a result, there are a number of site builders I have spoken with who are currently dropping Joomla and switching to Wordpress.
Migrations were bad for clients, who didn't have funds to pay for it. Site builders, in many cases, ate the costs to keep the client and to keep the site running Joomla. However, since no one has promised an easy migration going forward, many are jumping ship now rather than waiting to see what the 2.5 to 3.5 migration will be like.
This point is relevant to site builders who understand the release cycle.
3. A larger part of site builders don't understand the release cycle. They are still running sites on 1.5, 1.6, or 1.7, may still be building sites in these versions, don't upgrade/migrate in a timely manner, and are deeply confused by two current versions of Joomla. Understanding of what's supported and what's the current version is poor.
While I am all for a longer release cycle time, these other issues also need to be addressed. The migration issue is huge, and everyone I speak with these days wants to talk about it. Most site builders I know are having serious doubts about Joomla, even though they've been raving fans for years. Those who were less engaged by Joomla have already made the switch.
Yes, my data set on this is largely based in the northeastern United States - Drupal country. But I saw this same attitude on display in other areas while traveling to other parts of the US as well.
I'm glad the release cycle is being discussed, but I'd like to see more done to reassure site builders of easy migrations.
Jen
I'm glad the release cycle is being discussed, but I'd like to see more done to reassure site builders of easy migrations.
+1 for 2 years of LTS releases cycle.1) This brings it in sync with Ubuntu release-cycles, and makes a server-upgrade synced with a CMS upgrade easier.
2) 2 years is better and easier to remember than 18 months3) Ubuntu has surely had many thoughts and came to this 2-years conclusion too.
I would like to see a similar thought going on for a longer Security-only maintenance going on for LTS releases. Means a much longer overlap and time to organize for upgrades, e.g. to bring them in sync with sites-redesigns, and thus lower the maintenance costs and hassles for users.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/V3fYm3-JVYkJ.
It also means attracting more volunteers with longer attention spans. I'd put to you that in order to so, you need to hire staff or at the very least outsource first level security support.
Going from Joomla 2 (major version) to Joomla 3 (major version) is a
one-click upgrade for the Joomla core using Joomla's built-in Joomla!
Update component. Please see the Joomla 3 FAQ:
http://docs.joomla.org/Joomla_3.0_FAQ
On Monday, November 19, 2012 5:26:48 PM UTC+1, Nick Savov wrote:Going from Joomla 2 (major version) to Joomla 3 (major version) is a
one-click upgrade for the Joomla core using Joomla's built-in Joomla!
Update component. Please see the Joomla 3 FAQ:
http://docs.joomla.org/Joomla_3.0_FAQWhy is Joomla core always ignoring 10,000 extensions in its messages ?
Most Joomla sites I have seen have extensions installed.Upgrading from Joomla 2 to Joomla 3 is a one-click for the core, but as lots of extensions are not compatible with both releases (due to API reasons discussed extensively above) it's also the best way to bring your website down in one click, making one more unhappy user wanting to run away.
The time/cost of maintaining only security aspects for an old release is really low: 1-9 hours probably per security release of the next LTS release to review if a fixed vulnerability did also affect the previous version, and to backport the fix and to release...no need for 500 engineers to change a light bulb. :)
This point is relevant to site builders who understand the release cycle.
Not unless you’re 1000% sure. By default, Joomla will not let you update to 3.0 unless you activate the option within the Joomla! Update component (administrator >> Component >> Joomla! Update >> Options >> Update server >> Short Term Support). If for some reason you’ve changed this, and you’d like the updater to stop letting you upgrade, change the setting to Long Term Support. After making this change, you’ll only receive updates for Joomla 2.5.
A modification here is imo justified and might help everyone.
For example a simple note like:
Notice: You should not upgrade from Joomla 2.5 to Joomla 3.0 unless you are certain that all of your additionally installed extensions (from third party developers) are Joomla 3.0 ready or have a Joomla 3.0 version that you can upgrade to.
Any objections to a 3.3 or 3.4 release? This would put Joomla's LTS inline with Ubuntu's previous LTS period of three years, which now 5 years ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS)
I'm finding that when I talk to Enterprise users about adopting a system like Joomla, 3 - 5 years is the sweet spot for an LTS, where 1.5 years is concerning to them. I've mentioned the proposed 2 years. It helps, but is still unsettling, to be honest.
Best,
Matt Thomas
Founder betweenbrain™
Lead Developer Construct Template Development Framework
Phone: 203.632.9322
Twitter: @betweenbrain
Github: https://github.com/betweenbrain
Composed and delivered courtesy of Nexus 7.
--
I'd be very interested to hear more about what was discussed at JWC regarding this. Mark mentioned that PLT didn't discuss a 3.3 or 3.4, which I wish they would have.
I personally believe that the project could be more "enterprise ready" if that is a direction that the project (leadership) chose to go in. That's not meant to be any sort of criticism, but reality as some of us do not have the resources to provide that extra level of support without the pooling of our collective resources. The structure / support for "us" to do that needs to be in place. Besides, isn't working together to build something better part of what the Joomla! Community is about?
Best,
Matt Thomas
Founder betweenbrain™
Lead Developer Construct Template Development Framework
Phone: 203.632.9322
Twitter: @betweenbrain
Github: https://github.com/betweenbrain
Composed and delivered courtesy of Nexus 7.
--
I wasn't part of the conversation, so I don't know. But speaking as a JBS
member, the biggest problem is that we already need more volunteers in JBS
to keep things going, as JBS is overworked with the current workload.
Adding a bigger workload on JBS would not be a good idea at this point.
People from the community need to step up and either join JBS or help out.
In fact, they don't even have to be JBS members to test patches, create
patches, etc. We just need more people to help out and without getting
more people, it's unwise to increase the workload.
Kind regards,
Nick
> I'd be very interested to hear more about what was discussed at JWC
> regarding this. Mark mentioned that PLT didn't discuss a 3.3 or 3.4, which
> I wish they would have.
>
> I personally believe that the project could be more "enterprise ready" if
> that is a direction that the project (leadership) chose to go in. That's
> not meant to be any sort of criticism, but reality as some of us do not
> have the resources to provide that extra level of support without the
> pooling of our collective resources. The structure / support for "us" to
> do
> that needs to be in place. Besides, isn't working together to build
> something better part of what the Joomla! Community is about?
>
> Best,
>
> Matt Thomas
> Founder betweenbrain�
>> Founder betweenbrain�
@Nick per Mark's first note:
"This also means that the 3.5 release will never be the active development branch, so there should be fewer changes to 3.5 after release (mostly security fixes)."
Which means that the additional workload for those of us on the JBS will be minimal.
Best,
Matt
Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
My apologies for the use of the word "enterprise" as I think this is more than just that. Please put that aside for the moment.
In my last note, I tried to clarify that the biggest issue that I see is users wanting stability over new features. I realize that there needs to be a balance between the two, and maybe that is a 2 year LTS, maybe 3 to 5 years. This has nothing to do with Joomla being enterprise software or not, it's about long term stability.
I'm simply asking if the PLT would be willing to simply discuss a 3.3 and 3.4.
Best,
Matt
Sent from my phone that uses an open source operating system.
I love it when active members of the community, not to mention active supporters and advocates of Joomla, come forward with ideas to help improve the process, and those ideas are met with hostility and actively run into the ground by legacy personalities.
Frankly Elin, its these kinds of responses from you that turn off new contributors and discourage people like me from once again getting more involved. Ironically, I was about to come forward and make a commitment to the project to help see this through.
So really I would think carefully before assuming other people's intent before you make such drastic assumptions yourself.
Best,
Matt Thomas
Founder betweenbrain™
Lead Developer Construct Template Development Framework
Phone: 203.632.9322
Twitter: @betweenbrain
Github: https://github.com/betweenbrain
Composed and delivered courtesy of Nexus 7.
I love it when people give other people "minimal" work. The people who will be leading and those doing the daily grind work of JBS in 2016 are most likely not even here. I really think that the commitments we have already imposed on them in terms of release schedule, expectations about speed of feature processing, and other issues is pretty demanding already. What do you think it will take to make 2.5 comply with the code standards of PHP 5.10? Because that is what you are talking about. What about keeping it working with newer versions of the databases? As I have said, if that's important for your clients by all means provide that service or provide them older PHP hosting.
In that case, it doesn't matter what anyone says in here. I say: " Go for it!".
--
Fill your boots Andrew :)If you can convince the community the survey is representative, does anything else matter ?
--
In short, would adding an extra 1.5 years (i.e. via x.2, x.3, and x.4)
likely cause developers to lose interest?
Would it likely cause a big
backward compatibility break and thus lose our one-click upgrade like we
have now (e.g. 2.5 to 3.0)?
I don't have the answer to those questions, unfortunately. I'd be
interested in hearing from those that worked on the development of 1.6 to
see what their thoughts are on the subject.
Hi everyone. When the PLT met at the Joomla World Conference we decided to propose a modest change to the development cycle. The current plan for version 3 is as follows:
3.0: released September 2012
3.1: March 2013
3.5: September 2013
4.0: March 2014
We are proposing to modify this to add a 3.2 release as follows:
3.0: released September 2012
3.1: March 2013
3.2: September 2013
3.5: March 2014
4.0: September 2014
This means that new major releases would be every 2 years instead of every 18 months. This would also extend the official support period for LTS releases by six months. For example, 2.5 users on the LTS cycle would not update to 3.5 until September 2014 (instead of March 2014).
This also means that the 3.5 release will never be the active development branch, so there should be fewer changes to 3.5 after release (mostly security fixes).
The PLT thinks this is a good adjustment to our release cycle. What do you think?
Thanks. Mark