Mailing List Archive

Hi Leonel,

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Leonel Nunez wrote:

> Hello Cherokee users lovers and fans
>
> Cherokee 1.2.101 for Ubuntu Quantal Quetzal packages are ready at launchpad

Could you also make a package from todays Git master?

Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Hi,

2012/10/26 Stefan de Konink <stefan@konink.de>:
>
> Could you also make a package from todays Git master?
>

This is kind of a strange thing to do. Who would do a package from a
development version ? Well, maybe in an 'experimental' repository. But
I would be surprised if a maintainer do a "production ready" package
outside of an official upstream release.

You are confident about the stability (and improvements) of your
software in the master branch. But I don't think you can expect anyone
else to be.

I think you should do some releases at least a few times a year. A
simple tarball, versionned 1.2.xxx would be fine, if no change is
significative enough to bump to 1.3. And then, you won't have to ask
maintainers to do their job.

Anyway, thank you for your work on this great piece of software.

--
Christophe.
PS: I read the thread named "Is Cherokee Project still active?" but I
wasn't a subscriber at this time.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Hi,

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Christophe Drevet wrote:

> This is kind of a strange thing to do. Who would do a package from a
> development version ?

How many times should we tell this? Github is /not/ a development version,
the master branch is production, it gets fixes and only fixes.


> You are confident about the stability (and improvements) of your
> software in the master branch. But I don't think you can expect anyone
> else to be.

Why do you make this claim? Your reasoning is not founded on logic:

- Given: I think that the software is stable in the master branch
- I pose: the software is stable, use the master branch
- Your suggestion: the software is stable, release a tar

Who decides in both situation that the software is stable?

Any current software development uses version management. If you think
that a tarball release is worth more to a userthan a stable branch were
fixes are available from directly, that is kind of old fashioned. This
has nothing to do with expectations but what services we provide to our
users: a stable github repo.


Stefan


_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

2012/10/26 Stefan de Konink <stefan@konink.de>:
> Any current software development uses version management. If you think that
> a tarball release is worth more to a userthan a stable branch were fixes are
> available from directly, that is kind of old fashioned. This has nothing to
> do with expectations but what services we provide to our users: a stable
> github repo.
>

I just think a version number is expected for a stable release. Not a
sha1 commit id. I don't know other projects, I mean big as a web
server, doing the same thing. I can expect this for a plugin or a php
script, not for a software like that.

The other thing is that the cherokee project home page is telling the
world that the latest vesion is 1.2.101, not the master git branch.
Maybe it is the only thing to change, after all.

Sorry to bother you.

Again, I'm thankful for your work on this software.

--
Christophe.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Christophe Drevet wrote:

> The other thing is that the cherokee project home page is telling the
> world that the latest vesion is 1.2.101, not the master git branch.
> Maybe it is the only thing to change, after all.

This is a good suggestion, we were in the process of moving everything to
the github 'website system', I guess we should finish this mark the latest
version really our master branch.


> Again, I'm thankful for your work on this software.

And thank you, for the feedback this does really help :)

Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

great,a little later,but so happy.
在 2012-10-26 下午7:45，"Leonel Nunez" <listas@enelserver.com>写道：

>
> Hello Cherokee users lovers and fans
>
> Cherokee 1.2.101 for Ubuntu Quantal Quetzal packages are ready at launchpad
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
>
>
> Saludos
>
> Leonel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cherokee mailing list
> Cherokee@lists.octality.com
> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
>

> Hi Leonel,
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Leonel Nunez wrote:
>
>> Hello Cherokee users lovers and fans
>>
>> Cherokee 1.2.101 for Ubuntu Quantal Quetzal packages are ready at
>> launchpad
>
> Could you also make a package from todays Git master?
>
> Stefan
>


how frecuent do you think it's ok to keep this git package version updated
?? every week ? every month ??

Leonel


_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Yeah, we really need to get the current cherokee site updated/replaced
asap. That alone would fix the confusion for almost everybody I think. For
each person who continues to express this confusion/hesitation there must
be 10 others not here in the mailing list but with the same thoughts.

I would also like to assure anyone that the github master branch is
definitely what you want to be running in production. Hopefully in the
future we can have nice numbered releases that don't always require
fetching from git, which I'm sure is a holdup for some.

-Locke

On Oct 26, 2012 7:27 AM, "Stefan de Konink" <stefan@konink.de> wrote:
>
&g
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Christophe Drevet wrote:
>
> This is kind of a strange thing to do. Who would do a package from a
>> development version ?
>>
>
> How many times should we tell this? Github is /not/ a development version,
> the master branch is production, it gets fixes and only fixes.
>
>
> You are confident about the stability (and improvements) of your
>> software in the master branch. But I don't think you can expect anyone
>> else to be.
>>
>
> Why do you make this claim? Your reasoning is not founded on logic:
>
> - Given: I think that the software is stable in the master branch
> - I pose: the software is stable, use the master branch
> - Your suggestion: the software is stable, release a tar
>
> Who decides in both situation that the software is stable?
>
> Any current software development uses version management. If you think
> that a tarball release is worth more to a userthan a stable branch were
> fixes are available from directly, that is kind of old fashioned. This has
> nothing to do with expectations but what services we provide to our users:
> a stable github repo.
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Cherokee mailing list
> Cherokee@lists.octality.com
> http://lists.octality.com/**listinfo/cherokee<http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee>
>

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Leonel Nunez wrote:

> how frecuent do you think it's ok to keep this git package version updated
> ?? every week ? every month ??

Every commit? ;)

Maybe the first <<weekday>> every month?

Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Leonel Nunez wrote:
>
>> how frecuent do you think it's ok to keep this git package version
>> updated
>> ?? every week ? every month ??
>
> Every commit? ;)
>
> Maybe the first <<weekday>> every month?
>
> Stefan
>


Ok to schedule the packaging ..

Saludos


_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee@lists.octality.com
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee