Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>>>> probably a good idea to find a mode where releases get only big enough
>>>> to address a small number of specific issues (and the regular bug
>>>> fixes) on the point releases. That might satisfy only a small group of
>>>> current users, but the continued development could easily attract new
>>>> users too. That would be a net benefit.
>>
>> Question:  How should we look at getting rid of the old code, post 1.3?
>
> I will trust that you are not talking about 2.0 here.  Because down that
> way lies madness, at least if 1.3 is ever to happen.
>
> Why not start phasing out (by rewriting) SL/old code, during the
> sub-releases of 1.3?

Eek.  that means replacing 1000+ line files in the middle of a stable
branch.....  Not really thrilled about that even if we reconsider the
policy on feature freezes and I'd object to that because I think it is
important that people be able to get bugfix-only releases.

However, one thing I am adding with 1.3 is the ability to do add-ons
which replace or extend functionality in 1.3.  This is an area where a
lot of this could be done.  The problems however occur when trying to
bring more sanity to the database schema, since those really shouldn't
be in stable branches if we can avoid it.

> After the main release of 1.3.0, set a list of things to be rewritten.  As
> bugs are fixed, etc., and new versions are released, the replacement code
> can be incorporated with no real notice to the users.

Given the changes that are probably needed, "no real notice" is
probably a bad idea.....  Better to do it as add-ons if possible, and
then at some point look at a minimal 2.0 build.....

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers