<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/02/13 13:14, Michael Gliwinski
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1416902.FoRh5zY5yp@hgis96" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Michael,<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1416902.FoRh5zY5yp@hgis96" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Just a quick question about the process for adding features to a technique.
How do you decide if a new version (major/minor) of a technique should be
created for a feature?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is currently a bit of blurred definition. Until now, we have
always said that bug fixes in Techniques should be applied to all
versions, with no version increment (ie, if a bug is in version 1.1,
we fix it in 1.1, without incrementing it). This is not a great
approach IMO, since versioned software/code/whatever should never
change. The reason we did it this way was to make sure that Rudder
users got bug fixes as soon as they are available.<br>
<br>
In the future, I would like to move to a clearer versioning policy.
This remains to be discussed, and hopefully this email can be a
start to the discussion, but here's what I was thinking:<br>
<ul>
<li>Minor version increments should be for bug fixes (ie, in the
example above, a bug in 1.1 would be fixed in 1.2)</li>
<li>New features would require a major version increment. So, a
new feature in a Technique in version 1.1 would be implemented
in 2.0.</li>
<li>By default, Rudder would automatically use the latest minor
version given a major version. So if I'm using a Technique in
version 1.*, currently 1.1, and 1.2 is available, Directives are
automatically upgraded to 1.2.</li>
<ul>
<li>This behaviour should be disable-able on a per Directive
basis, and on a global basis, to enable "freezes" such as
exist in many companies.<br>
</li>
<li>This also means that minor versions could not introduce new
variables (or change constraints on existing variables).<br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
What do you think about this versioning policy, everyone?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1416902.FoRh5zY5yp@hgis96" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I've a small addition to fileManagement, to allow maintaining local copies of
files (needed that in some cases where dropping a symlink wouldn't work for
security reasons, e.g. cron.d files).
So far I patched version 1.0 which works OK for me, but I wanted to submit it
:)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sounds great! I must buy you a beer ;-)<br>
<br>
So for this particular case, I would suggest submitting a new major
version, because this is quite a significant improvement, and would
fit with this new versioning policy if we adopt it. To submit, the
preffered approach is to use a GitHub Pull Request.<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
a.redlink:link { color: #962322; }
a.redlink:visited { color: #962322; }
.sig { font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small; }
.sigsmall { font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-small; }
-->
</style>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="380">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<hr></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b><img alt=""
src="cid:part1.04020006.01010205@normation.com"
align="left" height="50" hspace="10" width="50">
<span class="sig">Jonathan CLARKE</span></b><br>
<span class="sig"><i>CTO - Directeur technique</i></span><br>
<span class="sig"><a class="redlink"
href="http://www.normation.com">Normation</a></span> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<hr></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><span class="sigsmall"><b>87 rue de Turbigo,
75003 Paris, France</b></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="sigsmall">Telephone:</span></td>
<td><span class="sigsmall">+33 (0)1 83 62 41 24</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="sigsmall">Mobile:</span></td>
<td><span class="sigsmall">+33 (0)6 99 60 03 10</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<hr></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>