It's an understandable developper's
point of view, not mine and not (most of) my customers' either. ;-)
Marcos, you mention "stable" versions of Dolibarr, each version is reputed stable as long as it's no longer RC. LTS and stable versions are different things, although LTS are necessarily stable, but you know that.
As a developper, it may not be your business "to care about people not upgrading their modules", but it's the one for some/many of us, even though we're not developpers (in the acceptance that we're not coding contributors to the core developpement, nor to any modules).
Users (not to say customers) are the ones whom Dolibarr is intended for, not developpers (no offense, I hope). Softwares developped by developpers ignoring their users tend to be forsaken by them, how many Open Source projects have been experiencing that ?
What users expect with LTS versions is certainly not the addition of new features and modules, it's just an extended stability over the years. This just means correcting security holes and majors (and sometimes minor) bugs. It has nothing to do with backward compatibility, it's just strengthening a version that fullfiils the user's requirements.
Not everybody needs the latest features. Some of my customers still run 2.8.1 because it's just what they expect Dolibarr to serve on an daily basis, and until they're not convinced they shall gain some added value for their business with the new version, they'll get stuck with it.
Because they know that any change means money expenses and trouble (i.e. more money). "IT" is just not their business, and they just don't want to endure stress and complexity, even more with FLOSS !! Many of them have left privaters s/w because they had to "follow the rythm", even when it was not what they wanted.
It has not much to do with "living in the past", it's just a matter of tranquility and money expenses from professional users who are nothing but IT experts.
But as I wrote at the beginning of this post, I do understand it may be some kind of pain for developpers to keep maintaining (security, bugs) quite an old version for 2 or 3 years, while improving the new ones...
BTW, do we have somewhere (somehow) a view (survey ?) of Dolibarr versions currently in use over the world ? That could be an interesting point...
Marcos, you mention "stable" versions of Dolibarr, each version is reputed stable as long as it's no longer RC. LTS and stable versions are different things, although LTS are necessarily stable, but you know that.
As a developper, it may not be your business "to care about people not upgrading their modules", but it's the one for some/many of us, even though we're not developpers (in the acceptance that we're not coding contributors to the core developpement, nor to any modules).
Users (not to say customers) are the ones whom Dolibarr is intended for, not developpers (no offense, I hope). Softwares developped by developpers ignoring their users tend to be forsaken by them, how many Open Source projects have been experiencing that ?
What users expect with LTS versions is certainly not the addition of new features and modules, it's just an extended stability over the years. This just means correcting security holes and majors (and sometimes minor) bugs. It has nothing to do with backward compatibility, it's just strengthening a version that fullfiils the user's requirements.
Not everybody needs the latest features. Some of my customers still run 2.8.1 because it's just what they expect Dolibarr to serve on an daily basis, and until they're not convinced they shall gain some added value for their business with the new version, they'll get stuck with it.
Because they know that any change means money expenses and trouble (i.e. more money). "IT" is just not their business, and they just don't want to endure stress and complexity, even more with FLOSS !! Many of them have left privaters s/w because they had to "follow the rythm", even when it was not what they wanted.
It has not much to do with "living in the past", it's just a matter of tranquility and money expenses from professional users who are nothing but IT experts.
But as I wrote at the beginning of this post, I do understand it may be some kind of pain for developpers to keep maintaining (security, bugs) quite an old version for 2 or 3 years, while improving the new ones...
BTW, do we have somewhere (somehow) a view (survey ?) of Dolibarr versions currently in use over the world ? That could be an interesting point...
Best Regards/Bien cordialement,
Manuel PINTOR
06 67 92 60 36
http://idl-mp.com
i.d & l sur identi.ca
Faites un geste pour la planète, n'imprimez ce message que si nécessaire.
Le 30/07/2012 17:05, Marcos García a écrit :Manuel PINTOR
06 67 92 60 36
http://idl-mp.com
i.d & l sur identi.ca
Faites un geste pour la planète, n'imprimez ce message que si nécessaire.
In my opinion, as long as Dolibarr is stable there's no need to make a LTS version, if the Dolibarr team decides to make a modification to the code that brokens backwards compatibility I think that it is because that's the correct way. It is our job as developers, to fix compatibility in third-party modules with newer versions, but it is not our job to care about people not upgrading their modules.
I know many people won't agree with me and I think my opinion is like "Planned obsolescence" but the web changes every day and I think that we cannot stay in old days...
Regards,
Marcos Garcíaaddress@hidden
2012/7/30 Régis Houssin <address@hidden>
I would be ok for an LTS version with the 3.2
Le 30/07/12 16:46, i.d & l a écrit :
+1 on my side for a Long Term Support version that would keep being supported for a while... at least 2 years.
Best regards/Bien cordialement,Le 30/07/2012 16:42, aurelien Imhof a écrit :
Manuel PINTOR
06 67 92 60 36
http://idl-mp.com
i.d & l sur identi.ca
Faites un geste pour la planète, n'imprimez ce message que si nécessaire.
Hello , Je suis avec la version 3.1, que j'ai mise a jour il y a quelques mois. toutefois , le temps de voir apparaître certain module en version 3.2, je ne souhaite pas upgrader tout de suite. Resultat , je me retrouve avec certain bug corrigé dans la version 3.2. Ma question est simple, n'y aurait il pas interet, afin de stabiliser la version utilisé en production a proposer une version en LTS à l'instar ubuntu. Vu de ma porte, ce permettrait de limiter les upgrades incessant sur les instance de mes clients. Ca vous parle ? --- en -- I'm using version 3.1, I updated a few months ago. however, the time of seeing certain module in version 3.2, I do not wish to upgrade immediately. Result, I end up with some bug fixed in version 3.2. My question is simple, there would he no interest, to stabilize the version used in production to propose an LTS version like Ubuntu. Seen from my door, it would reduce the constant upgrades on instance of my clients. It speaks to you?
_______________________________________________ Dolibarr-dev mailing list address@hidden https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dolibarr-dev
Cordialement, -- Régis Houssin --------------------------------------------------------- Cap-Networks Cidex 1130 34, route de Gigny 71240 MARNAY FRANCE VoIP: +33 1 83 62 40 03 GSM: +33 6 33 02 07 97 Web: http://www.cap-networks.com/ Email: address@hidden Dolibarr developer: address@hidden Web Portal: http://www.dolibarr.fr/ SaaS offers: http://www.dolibox.fr/ Shop: http://www.dolistore.com/ Development platform: https://doliforge.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Dolibarr-dev mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dolibarr-dev
_______________________________________________ Dolibarr-dev mailing list address@hidden https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dolibarr-dev