Next stable release?

[Toby Dickenson]

Hi all,

The last stable version, 2.2, was released at the end of January 2025.

Since then we have added plenty of new features; a cohesive bundle of
features that I think now justifies a new release. What do we think
about scheduling the next release for 6 months after the previous, at
the end of July?

I tentatively propose the following schedule:
* In the next few weeks we finalise any features that will be merged
in this version.
* Nominate one build in mid June as the beta release, and encourage
everyone using the test branch to update for maximum test coverage. We
hold off merging new features after this.
* Release 2.4 at the end of July, and start merging new feature pull
requests into the new version 2.5 test branch.

Feedback would be appreciated.

Toby

[tonyl...@gmail.com]

That sounds reasonable to me.

[Mike Menci]

Good approach - looking forward to see it!

[Jan]

Hi Toby!
That sounds like a very good idea to me! If you need any assistance,
please let me know.
I've noticed that a lot new issues have been opened recently. When I
skimmed through it, it sounded as if most of them were referring to v2.2
and at least some of them are serious. Maybe we can ask the OP to
recheck them against the test version or RC. I think we shall try to get
at least the serious ones fixed for the release.

Jan

[JW]

I've raised a good number of issues recently, but I think I've listed version in all my issues. If you have any in particular you're thinking of let me know and I'll double check.

[Toby Dickenson]

A lot of those that refer to 2.2 are recording ancient bugs from 2.0
and earlier. It would be great to get them fixed of course, but they
dont need to hold up 2.4.

I have added the label "blocker" to a few issues which appear to be a
regression in the test branch over 2.2.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/1952501e-0695-4467-9c8c-d323a25f0941n%40googlegroups.com.

[Toby Dickenson]

Hi all,

The schedule I previously suggested means we have a beta release next
weekend, then a final release at the end of July. That schedule still
seems ok to me.

It would be nice to merge https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/pull/1844
before then, but that PR currently has broken unit tests. The issue
previously tagged as blocker has been fixed (Thanks Tony!). Are there
any other PRs or issues that need to be addressed before this release?

> > On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:56:03 PM UTC+1 Jan wrote:

> >> If you need any assistance please let me know.

Jan you handled the final release process last time, and I have no
idea what steps are required.

[Michael Veigel]

Hello all,

does the Beta use the same XML configuration as the current development branch? Asking because I broke my almost working configuration when switching to the development version (my fault, no backup, no mercy :) ) but I don't want to step through Issues & Solutions again, if I test the Beta ;).

[tonyl...@gmail.com]

OpenPnP has been making backups of the configuration files for the last couple of years at least.  Look in the .openpnp2/backups folder.

[Toby Dickenson]

When swapping between versions you also want to take a backup of any
board, panel, and job files.

These files are all managed using the same java xml persistence
library, and it raises a hard error if it sees something unrecognized.
So any file updated in a new version with a new feature is likely to
be a problem when going back to the old version.

Toby

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/e7b5bd92-3dc3-4398-8b75-bfc2436af772n%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Veigel]

@Toby YMMD! Thanks for the hint 😃👍

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/CAH35ureG6UKF3nMJFcqqmi2ijeN93Mbe5r-YSPO-%3DDVnkcDPww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Toby Dickenson]

Hi all,

Revision f6fd3d5acb is the beta release of version 2.3

The full changelog since version 2.2 (February 2025) is at
https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/f6fd3d5acb/CHANGES.md Thanks
to everyone who has made a contribution there.

Users running the test branch, please update to f6fd3d5acb so that we
have maximum test coverage before the final release of this version at
the end of July. Developers, please refrain from merging new features
during this beta test window.

Toby

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/CAH7MouMm6qzQbV7RGT02Xp6%2BUeSRUd9NJgJVusi%3DKwn0uFo1FA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jan]

Hi Toby!

On 10.06.2025 12:34, Toby Dickenson wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:56:03 PM UTC+1 Jan wrote:
>>>> If you need any assistance please let me know.
>
> Jan you handled the final release process last time, and I have no
> idea what steps are required.
>

You just have to merge it and the wizards will sprinkle magic around,
just like on the test branch.

Jan

[Toby Dickenson]

Hi all,

Who can edit the https://openpnp.org/downloads/ page? I suggest it
would be good to:
* Archive the current main branch build as a named version 2.2
download. We should keep the 2.2 download links alive after releasing
2.4 next month.
* Add the 2.2 change log information to the download page, which is at
https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/e468422e544562b1e7b6cb7b3dc88df6de4f9b11/CHANGES.md

Toby

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/2fa3c8c5-21f8-44c0-abc7-7e9daaceb66e%40googlemail.com.

[PP.ca]

Maintainers, please review and merge this: https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/pull/1864

[tonyl...@gmail.com]

I merged PR#1865 into test to address issue error on pressing "test alignment" #1862. Looks like it was due to a latent bug that was only uncovered due to my previous memory leak fixes.

Tony

[Jan]

Hi Toby!
Jason is the one you're looking for. May I ask why you'd like to keep
the v2.2 link? 2.2 is still available in the archive. If its prominent
on the download page, it might cause more issues as uses don't know why
there are two stable versions to choose from...
Adding the changelog to the download page is likely something Jason
could add referencing the respective files in the repro.

Jan

[Jan]

This looks like a legal issue. I'm not an expert in that and can't
estimate what consequences this will have. The only think I do see
straight away is that there might be a conflict with the existing
license (GPL-3.0). How do they fit together?

Jan

On 21.06.2025 15:29, PP.ca wrote:
> Maintainers, please review and merge this: https://github.com/openpnp/
> openpnp/pull/1864
>
> On Friday, June 20, 2025 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-4 to...@tarind.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>

> Who can edit the https://openpnp.org/downloads/ <https://
> openpnp.org/downloads/> page? I suggest it

> would be good to:
> * Archive the current main branch build as a named version 2.2
> download. We should keep the 2.2 download links alive after releasing
> 2.4 next month.
> * Add the 2.2 change log information to the download page, which is at
> https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/

> e468422e544562b1e7b6cb7b3dc88df6de4f9b11/CHANGES.md <https://
> github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/
> e468422e544562b1e7b6cb7b3dc88df6de4f9b11/CHANGES.md>

>
> Toby
>
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 22:10, 'Jan' via OpenPnP
> <ope...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Toby!
> >
> > On 10.06.2025 12:34, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:56:03 PM UTC+1 Jan wrote:
> > >>>> If you need any assistance please let me know.
> > >
> > > Jan you handled the final release process last time, and I have no
> > > idea what steps are required.
> > >
> > You just have to merge it and the wizards will sprinkle magic
> around,
> > just like on the test branch.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> openpnp/2fa3c8c5-21f8-44c0-abc7-7e9daaceb66e%40googlemail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/2fa3c8c5-21f8-44c0-
> abc7-7e9daaceb66e%40googlemail.com>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> openpnp/7210ced8-1d55-429a-a8b2-b8412575382an%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/7210ced8-1d55-429a-a8b2-
> b8412575382an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Toby Dickenson]

> Jason is the one you're looking for. May I ask why you'd like to keep
> the v2.2 link?

I am happily running my machine with the test branch of course. But
there are other users who prefer to run a stable release. For those
users it is important that they can identify the official numbered
releases. Getting the latest build from branch "main" isnt quite the
same thing.

> 2.2 is still available in the archive

> If its prominent on the download page it might cause more issues as uses

Copying the *-main-* to *-2.2-* in the archive would be a fine solution.
https://openpnp.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/index.html

[tonyl...@gmail.com]

> Maintainers, please review and merge this: https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/pull/1864

I'm not a lawyer, but a good read about open source licensing is https://opensource.guide/legal/. Section 7 seems to indicate that there is no need for a separate contributor license agreement since it is already covered by https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license

[PP.ca]

I guess this is less about section 7 and more about section 6 and according to the GPL3 license published in the project, there are some decisions that require all contributors to agree.

I'm trying to prevent the situation when some past contributors become unreachable.

If the idea of licence-agreement and donating copyright to the project is reasonable and doesn't hurt, better have it and not need it than the other way around.

Took Mozilla 4+ years to gather all the approvals for a change they wanted...

[nic...@hedhman.org]

(I spent a fair number of years on Apache's legal committee and can
possibly assist here)

Contributor agreements come in two forms.

On one hand are the "Copyright Assignments" where the code ownership is
handed over to the project. Typically this is pushed by projects with
company backing and is the source of the licensing scandals (Redis,
Elastic, and others) in the last few years.

The other is "Contributor License Agreement" (CLA), that for instance
Apache Software Foundation is using. This is an "assurance" from the
contributor, and possibly the employer of said contributor, that he/she
has the copyright of every piece of code contributed. It is said to
"protect the contributor from legal risks", but personally I fail to see
how, and I think it is to protect the Foundation.

One of the challenges for either of these, is that "the project" is not
(AFAIK) a legal entity and hence can't be the copyright owner.
The CLA doesn't bring much to the table in this case, so let's ignore
that. (BUT, putting one's own name in the Copyright header of source
files is a legal risk and not actually required to claim Copyright if
one ever needs to. The source of truth sits in source control system,
something we can easily bring to life, but harder and more time
consuming for a legal team to search and find.)

For Copyright Assignment, you would either need to create a legal entity
(company, foundation, religious institution, ++) or assign it to one
particular individual and deal with passing that ownership to new people
over time. Technically speaking, it can be done with a small group of
people. In both cases, a fair amount of legal work is required to cover
the various cases, death, resignation, disagreement (if group) and so
forth.

NOTE: From a contributor's point of view, Copyright Assignment should be
viewed with suspicion. Commercial licensing and other "rug pulls" are
the main motivating factor for having Copyright Assignment. By
maintaining ownership for each individual person that has contributed,
such sleazy tactics are prevented for all time.

Also, the way the text is formulated "Assign all copyright and related
rights in their contributions to the OpenPnP project and its
maintainers.", I could fork the project, claim I am a maintainer and
relicense under a commercial one. GPL is all about NOT having that
option. The LICENSE-AGREEMENT.txt weakens the licensing terms for
everyone.

My recommendation is to rely on the GPLv3's history and legacy. It is
unlikely that a GPLv4 will arrive in the next 20-30 years, and if it
does, I am certain that it will be compatible with GPLv3, in similar
fashion that GPLv2 code bases can be included into GPLv3 projects. And
everything else is pretty well covered

HTH
Niclas

>>>> openpnp.org/downloads/ [1]> page? I suggest it

>>>> would be good to:
>>>> * Archive the current main branch build as a named version 2.2
>>>> download. We should keep the 2.2 download links alive after
>>> releasing
>>>> 2.4 next month.
>>>> * Add the 2.2 change log information to the download page, which
>>> is at
>>>> https://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/
>>>> e468422e544562b1e7b6cb7b3dc88df6de4f9b11/CHANGES.md <https://

>>>> github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/ [2]

>>>> e468422e544562b1e7b6cb7b3dc88df6de4f9b11/CHANGES.md>
>>>>
>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 22:10, 'Jan' via OpenPnP
>>>> <ope...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Toby!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10.06.2025 12:34, Toby Dickenson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:56:03 PM UTC+1 Jan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you need any assistance please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan you handled the final release process last time, and I
>>> have no
>>>>>> idea what steps are required.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You just have to merge it and the wizards will sprinkle magic
>>>> around,
>>>>> just like on the test branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>> Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>>> it,
>>>> send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
>>>> openpnp/2fa3c8c5-21f8-44c0-abc7-7e9daaceb66e%40googlemail.com

>>> [3]
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/2fa3c8c5-21f8-44c0-
>>>> abc7-7e9daaceb66e%40googlemail.com [3]>.

>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> Google
>>>> Groups "OpenPnP" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>>> it, send
>>>> an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com
>>>> <mailto:openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com>.
>>>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
>>>
>>>> openpnp/7210ced8-1d55-429a-a8b2-b8412575382an%40googlegroups.com

>>> [4]
>>>>
>>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/7210ced8-1d55-429a-a8b2-
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> b8412575382an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>>> [5]>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "OpenPnP" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/67ba59d0-9bbe-4a46-8f94-d9c24319a90dn%40googlegroups.com
> [6].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://openpnp.org/downloads/
> [2] http://github.com/openpnp/openpnp/blob/
> [3] http://40googlemail.com
> [4] http://40googlegroups.com
> [5] http://40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
> [6]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/67ba59d0-9bbe-4a46-8f94-d9c24319a90dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Jan]

Hi Toby!

On 23.06.2025 23:10, Toby Dickenson wrote:
>> Jason is the one you're looking for. May I ask why you'd like to keep
>> the v2.2 link?
>
> I am happily running my machine with the test branch of course. But
> there are other users who prefer to run a stable release. For those
> users it is important that they can identify the official numbered
> releases. Getting the latest build from branch "main" isnt quite the
> same thing.
>

The version identification is part of the source code and previously
only consists of the hash that was used to build it. At start of the
current test series (v2.3) we changed that to include the version
number. This change will be merged into the stable release as well
creating an installer that will indicate the version number. (when
merging the version number needs to be modified)
The automation that runs in the back creates a new version when ever
there is a change (merge) in the main or test branch. This includes
reading the version number from the (new) binary and updating the link
on the download page. So there shall not be any modifications to the
main branch that are not part of the (current) stable release.
This also means that the current stable version is the latest on the
main branch and the last that does not indicate the major.minor version
number in the installer filename. If the test branch gets merged into
the main branch (as is), the version will change to 2.3 generating a 2.3
version based on the main branch. If in addition the version in
incremented to 2.4 on the main branch and 2.5 on the test branch we're
set with the 2.4 stable release and development can continue using
version 2.5. The download page will then point to the 2.4 stable release
and 2.5 test branch. The updater will find this changes and suggest the
user to install the new versions respectively.

>> 2.2 is still available in the archive
>> If its prominent on the download page it might cause more issues as uses
>
> Copying the *-main-* to *-2.2-* in the archive would be a fine solution.
> https://openpnp.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/index.html
>

I think Jason shall be able to do this renaming, probably not before 2.4
has been released.

Jan

[Toby Dickenson]

Hi all,

Version 2.4 was scheduled to be released at the end of July. For personal reasons I now plan to release this a day early, which is tomorrow.

I would like to thank everyone who has supported the 6 week beta release period. During this period we have received lots of positive feedback and fixed two relatively obscure bugs, so I think we are in good shape for the stable release.

If anyone has any issues with the beta release that have not been reported yet, please do so asap!

Toby

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenPnP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openpnp+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openpnp/d7cb3567-d7db-42ac-a2eb-a54ce6c49373%40googlemail.com.