[sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Neal Caidin-3 Neal Caidin-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Hi All,

We just had an initial ice breaker on the CLE release team call about whether to focus on a 2.9.4 or put our energies into a 2.10 release (likely to be renamed, but probably not to Sakai "Chocolate Pudding" - though that is one of the few things I've said recently that my 12 year old thinks is a cool idea. most of dad's ideas are decidedly not cool :-) ).

There were several folks who expressed that they prefer to focus on the 2.10 release and nobody on the call who was pushing for a 2.9.4 release, but this is just a preliminary discussion to take the temperature of the group. 

A couple of points that were made:

* TCC said at Open Apereo that now would be the time to focus on 2.10 - https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/TCC+Project+Coordination+Meetings+at+2013+Conference
* Assertion that for most institutions, the earliest for a new 2.9.x release would be December/ January
* Instead of a 2.9.4 release, could we identify and recommended fixes for 2.9.x instead of creating a tagged release, so we still address critical issues, but minimize effort on QA and elminate need for the Release activities. 

Requested Action for CLE and TCC:

* Over the next week, please look in Jira and identify issues that look potentially important to get into a 2.9.4/2.9.x .  We can review these Jiras to assess the best 2.9.x strategy. You can send the issues to me or post on the Etherpad for the next CLE release team meeting - http://etherpad.ctools.org/rmmt-2013-09-05

Questions:
* If we start focusing on 2.10 , what is our communications plan to highlight the important planned feature improvements (aka "getting the Provost's attention")?
* What would be the first milestone for 2.10? An Alpha release? 
* By when do we need to decide on the non-Chocolate pudding name for the release? I'm happy to facilitate a name brainstorming. Maybe we should have a contest for fun? I presume the final decision is up to the TCC/PMC?
* Community Contributions - how do we encourage community contributions to the release? Sign up tool? iSyllabus? Others?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neal


Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin










_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Steve Swinsburg-3 Steve Swinsburg-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

For the name, are we choosing an actual name as you allude to, or just the version number?

Neal, I thought I had some bad dad jokes, but yours takes the pudding ;)

cheers,
Steve


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Neal Caidin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

We just had an initial ice breaker on the CLE release team call about whether to focus on a 2.9.4 or put our energies into a 2.10 release (likely to be renamed, but probably not to Sakai "Chocolate Pudding" - though that is one of the few things I've said recently that my 12 year old thinks is a cool idea. most of dad's ideas are decidedly not cool :-) ).

There were several folks who expressed that they prefer to focus on the 2.10 release and nobody on the call who was pushing for a 2.9.4 release, but this is just a preliminary discussion to take the temperature of the group. 

A couple of points that were made:

* TCC said at Open Apereo that now would be the time to focus on 2.10 - https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/TCC+Project+Coordination+Meetings+at+2013+Conference
* Assertion that for most institutions, the earliest for a new 2.9.x release would be December/ January
* Instead of a 2.9.4 release, could we identify and recommended fixes for 2.9.x instead of creating a tagged release, so we still address critical issues, but minimize effort on QA and elminate need for the Release activities. 

Requested Action for CLE and TCC:

* Over the next week, please look in Jira and identify issues that look potentially important to get into a 2.9.4/2.9.x .  We can review these Jiras to assess the best 2.9.x strategy. You can send the issues to me or post on the Etherpad for the next CLE release team meeting - http://etherpad.ctools.org/rmmt-2013-09-05

Questions:
* If we start focusing on 2.10 , what is our communications plan to highlight the important planned feature improvements (aka "getting the Provost's attention")?
* What would be the first milestone for 2.10? An Alpha release? 
* By when do we need to decide on the non-Chocolate pudding name for the release? I'm happy to facilitate a name brainstorming. Maybe we should have a contest for fun? I presume the final decision is up to the TCC/PMC?
* Community Contributions - how do we encourage community contributions to the release? Sign up tool? iSyllabus? Others?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neal


Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin










_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Dr. Chuck Dr. Chuck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Neal Caidin-3 Neal Caidin-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

AFAIK the TCC / PMC leanings are towards a number for the release. It seemed to me like there was some momentum towards a Sakai 4, skipping over Sakai 3 for the obvious (to this crowd) reasons. That being said, I think donut flavor themes, not stores,  would be awesome! Sakai Bavarian Creme, Sakai Raspberry Jelly, Sakai Maple Bacon. Mmmm mmm good. Okay, I guess that is not *that* different from pudding themes. 

I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

Cheers,
Neal "There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-bad-joke" Caidin



Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Charles Severance <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
markjnorton markjnorton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

>  I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

I was wondering why you think that donut or pudding names might be attractive to a Provost when pitching Sakai?  Personally, I think we should stay with the number system.  I prefer 4.0 since Sakai has made a lot of progress in the past few years.  The version numbers should reflect it's maturity, IMO.

I agree with Chuck, as well.  This release should have some major functional improvements.  Let's tackle some of the big ticket items that have languishing in Jira.  Also, give it a decent amount of time - a year at least.

That said, if you want to use code names for a release, then Sakai Maple Bacon, by all means!  Just release it as 4.0, please.

- Mark Norton


On 8/30/2013 8:14 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:
AFAIK the TCC / PMC leanings are towards a number for the release. It seemed to me like there was some momentum towards a Sakai 4, skipping over Sakai 3 for the obvious (to this crowd) reasons. That being said, I think donut flavor themes, not stores,  would be awesome! Sakai Bavarian Creme, Sakai Raspberry Jelly, Sakai Maple Bacon. Mmmm mmm good. Okay, I guess that is not *that* different from pudding themes. 

I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

Cheers,
Neal "There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-bad-joke" Caidin



Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Charles Severance <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Neal Caidin-3 Neal Caidin-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

I was wondering why you think that donut or pudding names might be attractive to a Provost when pitching Sakai?

LOL. Touché .




Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:29 AM, "Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

I was wondering why you think that donut or pudding names might be attractive to a Provost when pitching Sakai?  Personally, I think we should stay with the number system.  I prefer 4.0 since Sakai has made a lot of progress in the past few years.  The version numbers should reflect it's maturity, IMO.

I agree with Chuck, as well.  This release should have some major functional improvements.  Let's tackle some of the big ticket items that have languishing in Jira.  Also, give it a decent amount of time - a year at least.

That said, if you want to use code names for a release, then Sakai Maple Bacon, by all means!  Just release it as 4.0, please.

- Mark Norton


On 8/30/2013 8:14 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:
AFAIK the TCC / PMC leanings are towards a number for the release. It seemed to me like there was some momentum towards a Sakai 4, skipping over Sakai 3 for the obvious (to this crowd) reasons. That being said, I think donut flavor themes, not stores,  would be awesome! Sakai Bavarian Creme, Sakai Raspberry Jelly, Sakai Maple Bacon. Mmmm mmm good. Okay, I guess that is not *that* different from pudding themes. 

I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

Cheers,
Neal "There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-bad-joke" Caidin



Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Charles Severance <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Anthony Whyte Anthony Whyte
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

It's hard to imagine Hiroyuki Sakai, the "Delacroix of French cuisine" and our namesake, serving up a Bavarian Creme, unless he appeared in cartoon form on "The Simpsons."  I offer in support of this assertion his menu, pulled from a photo, circa 2011, suggesting a rather different culinary experience than what one would find at Tim Horton's (which to its credit is linked to hockey) or a donut shop [1].  Also recount Iron Chef Sakai's many "battle" honors, none of which involved a donut [2].

A donut-themed release?   Oh the humanity.

Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Lobster stuffed Fruit tomate with Sauternes wine jelly and Mango sauce

Pan fried Scallop with truffle flavor and sauteed White asparagus

Sauteed Foie gras and simmered Daikon radish with Sesame flavor sauce

Simmered Abalone, Fresh Sea urchin with Vegetable jelly

Seasonal vegetable soup or Sorbet

Today's Seafood or Grilled Japanese beef

Grand Dessert "La Rochelle"

Coffee or Tea



anthony whyte | its and mlibrary | university of michigan | [hidden email] | 517-980-0228


On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:

I was wondering why you think that donut or pudding names might be attractive to a Provost when pitching Sakai?

LOL. Touché .




Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:29 AM, "Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

I was wondering why you think that donut or pudding names might be attractive to a Provost when pitching Sakai?  Personally, I think we should stay with the number system.  I prefer 4.0 since Sakai has made a lot of progress in the past few years.  The version numbers should reflect it's maturity, IMO.

I agree with Chuck, as well.  This release should have some major functional improvements.  Let's tackle some of the big ticket items that have languishing in Jira.  Also, give it a decent amount of time - a year at least.

That said, if you want to use code names for a release, then Sakai Maple Bacon, by all means!  Just release it as 4.0, please.

- Mark Norton


On 8/30/2013 8:14 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:
AFAIK the TCC / PMC leanings are towards a number for the release. It seemed to me like there was some momentum towards a Sakai 4, skipping over Sakai 3 for the obvious (to this crowd) reasons. That being said, I think donut flavor themes, not stores,  would be awesome! Sakai Bavarian Creme, Sakai Raspberry Jelly, Sakai Maple Bacon. Mmmm mmm good. Okay, I guess that is not *that* different from pudding themes. 

I do think it would be good to get some reaction to the community on any name change, just to be able to anticipate the response, if nothing else.

Cheers,
Neal "There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-bad-joke" Caidin



Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Charles Severance <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
markjnorton markjnorton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Steve Swinsburg-3 Steve Swinsburg-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Berg, Alan Berg, Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]>
To: "Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]>
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee <[hidden email]>


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
markjnorton markjnorton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc




_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Berg, Alan Berg, Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

More that its functionality kicks ###



"Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc




_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Noah Botimer Noah Botimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] [cle-release-team] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

In reply to this post by Dr. Chuck
Yes. I made a note for myself to respond today -- "aren't these the same thing?" So, I'm glad people have mentioned that.

The point about fixes after big restructuring is well taken but, in general, any work on 2.9.x should happen in trunk first and be merged. I think it's a red herring to focus on whether developers focus on one or the other. It's really more about coordination and QA energy. If there is something truly wicked brewing, perhaps it should be in a branch and kept close to trunk for now and QA'd a bit before merge to trunk. (P.S., Git makes this a lot easier -- as evidenced by KNL-515.)

My feeling is that things should be getting QA when they get merged to 2.9.x, ASAP, regardless of the timing of releases.

If there is a fix that someone (developer, implementor, QA) thinks is pressing for 2.9.x, merge it and QA it. Waiting for release ramp-down is deficit spending and burns every time. Test data points spread out over time are easier to integrate than a huge lump of pass/fails in "release candidate" for something that is supposed to be stable.

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Charles Severance wrote:


On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

If we focus on 2.10 and don't have resources for a full 2.9.4 release at this time then we should continue to merge to 2.9.x where appropriate - at some point in the future we could cut a 2.9.4 release. This goes directly to the goal that the branch is in a constantly releasable state.

This fits my thinking.  In effect we will almost certainly end up with a 2.9.4 one way or another - the question is it really just critical bug fixes that get merged or do we push non-trivial functionality into 2.9.4 like we have in 2.9.3 and 2.9.2.

In particular if agree that the primary focus will be TimHorton (I decided to take names from famous donut shops) it does mean that moving bug fixes back might be a little trickier and trickier over time.   

For example once we decide that TimHorton is the focus - I will go in and drop all the 2.8 templates and skins i portal in trunk.  I might do a touch of code refactoring between SkinnableCharonPortal and PortalService - particularly those comments where we say "this code is duplicated in two other places..." - and I might just drop LTI 2.0 into trunk of TimHorton with an experimental option to hide it instead of living in a Branch.

All these things mean it gets harder and harder to push large amounts of code changes back to the 2-9-x branch since stuff gets pushed around and things are not even in the same places.

It wont' be impossible to get a fix into 2-1-x just a little tricker potentially.

I am for having a small fix-only 2.9.4 sometime in the future with a few months of making real progress on the trunk toward the TimHorton release.  For example, I would love to see someone drop in a non-db event bus and enable it buy default :)   Lets make some real progress.

/Chuck
_______________________________________________
cle-release-team mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Noah Botimer Noah Botimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

In reply to this post by Berg, Alan
Jokes and fun aside, please do not let us get whooped up over 4.0 branding yet. It's still just trunk until it's not.

I still favor some purposeful planning of a "get ready" release called 2.10 and a "whoa, lots of differences" release called 4.0.

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

More that its functionality kicks ###



"Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Berg, Alan Berg, Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Still like 4. Like the Linux kernel. At a certain point you just have to say there is enough in there to warrant a major jump.

Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jokes and fun aside, please do not let us get whooped up over 4.0 branding yet. It's still just trunk until it's not.

I still favor some purposeful planning of a "get ready" release called 2.10 and a "whoa, lots of differences" release called 4.0.

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

More that its functionality kicks ###



"Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Noah Botimer Noah Botimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Oh, I like it just fine. But if we are remotely serious about some major changes, we should be conscious of a good time to make them and messaging around them. Something like 4.0 being "pretty much as things were" and 4.1 packing a bunch of dramatic changes is unhelpful for any involved. (5.0 would work.)

My principle here is that we should be planning two releases if these major things are any more than hot air. Whatever their versions are doesn't much matter to me, but there is an opportunity for adaptation and clear messaging of a maturity and process reboot, which we should not squander.

If we are just talking rather than positioning to implement major changes, same-as-ever works fine and the version is pretty irrelevant. It's all just v.latest.

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

Still like 4. Like the Linux kernel. At a certain point you just have to say there is enough in there to warrant a major jump.

Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jokes and fun aside, please do not let us get whooped up over 4.0 branding yet. It's still just trunk until it's not.

I still favor some purposeful planning of a "get ready" release called 2.10 and a "whoa, lots of differences" release called 4.0.

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

More that its functionality kicks ###



"Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark




_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Neal Caidin-3 Neal Caidin-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

Looping back in the CLE release team so they can see Noah's substantive comments.

See below.

-- Neal



Neal Caidin
Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
Skype: nealkdin
Twitter: ncaidin









On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh, I like it just fine. But if we are remotely serious about some major changes, we should be conscious of a good time to make them and messaging around them. Something like 4.0 being "pretty much as things were" and 4.1 packing a bunch of dramatic changes is unhelpful for any involved. (5.0 would work.)

My principle here is that we should be planning two releases if these major things are any more than hot air. Whatever their versions are doesn't much matter to me, but there is an opportunity for adaptation and clear messaging of a maturity and process reboot, which we should not squander.

If we are just talking rather than positioning to implement major changes, same-as-ever works fine and the version is pretty irrelevant. It's all just v.latest.

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

Still like 4. Like the Linux kernel. At a certain point you just have to say there is enough in there to warrant a major jump.

Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jokes and fun aside, please do not let us get whooped up over 4.0 branding yet. It's still just trunk until it's not.

I still favor some purposeful planning of a "get ready" release called 2.10 and a "whoa, lots of differences" release called 4.0.

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

Thanks,
-Noah

On Aug 30, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

More that its functionality kicks ###



"Mark J. Norton" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does that mean it's the last release?

- Mark

On 8/30/2013 9:36 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:
CLE 'Terminator' 4


Regards Alan,

Sent from somewhere interesting via a Mobile device.



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort
From: Steve Swinsburg [hidden email]
To: "Mark J. Norton" [hidden email]
CC: sakai2-tcc Committee [hidden email]


CLE 4  "Grilled Japanese Beef".

+1


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Mark J. Norton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8/30/2013 9:18 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
Sakai's La Rochelle menu (2011) [1]

Sign me up, I'm hungry already!

- Mark



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc


_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Dr. Chuck Dr. Chuck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

In reply to this post by Noah Botimer

On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

I am not a fan of saying - we can't call it "4.0" until we meet some set of this that and another thing.

If we had some minimum number of major new features we wanted, we could for example rename "Site Stats" to "Analytics" and use that to justify the 4.0 moniker.  Adding Analytics would be big.

I also agree with Mark that code names are just code names and make us sound cooler when we talk about the releases - the artifacts, snapshots and releases will have real numbers. But if we have code names - we can say cool things like this:

"I think that Sticky Sessions should not be a priority in the in the MapleBacon release but instead delayed until the HoneyCruller release."

Perhaps an even cooler idea would be to use code names for releases - but each of us can make up our own code names for the releases.   Then when people monitor our mailing lists we will seem extremely clever and complex.

/Chuck



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
Berg, Alan Berg, Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort

> If we had some minimum number of major new features we wanted, we could for example rename "Site Stats" to "Analytics" and use that to justify the 4.0 moniker.  Adding Analytics would be big.

Would be nice to have Unicon and UvA's efforts around xAPI support in Sakai CLE take off. The easiest part to build would be a recommendation application backed off to a Learning Record Store with a dashboard using BasicLTI. This way we don't get stuck inside any given LMS and we can collect student activities from multiple applications. For example, we expect xAPI support in OAE and uPortal sooner rather than later. Recommendations could be done real time.

At UvA we are running or will do soon a number of pilots across application's. I have even compiled a list of LA pilots in the wild that have resources on the Internet. https://www.surfspace.nl/sig/18-learning-analytics/82-case-studies/

Would make for a discrete effort that would be less scoped than a full LA, student retention, success
 and intervention framework.

Regards,
          
Alan


Alan Berg

Innovation working group
On the use of ICT in Education & Research
University of Amsterdam


From: Charles Severance [[hidden email]]
Sent: 31 August 2013 00:24
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Berg, Alan; Noah Botimer
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] CLE 2.9.4 vs CLE 2.10 effort


On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Noah Botimer <[hidden email]> wrote:

My rationale is: there is a ton of stuff (without a good list) already in trunk without major restructuring, etc. There are things "on the roadmap" that might or might not come to be, like crazy portal cleanup, offloading of DB messaging and logging, major module restructuring, source control changes, build tool changes, better responsive support, and more. Holding the already-done stuff hostage for bold initiatives is not a victory for anyone. Charging forward with a mish-mash of a few known and a bunch of unknown things with a brand new 4.0 label is also not a victory. If there is a "marketing shot" to be fired, it should be better planned than "we're tired of calling it 2.x".

I am not a fan of saying - we can't call it "4.0" until we meet some set of this that and another thing.

If we had some minimum number of major new features we wanted, we could for example rename "Site Stats" to "Analytics" and use that to justify the 4.0 moniker.  Adding Analytics would be big.

I also agree with Mark that code names are just code names and make us sound cooler when we talk about the releases - the artifacts, snapshots and releases will have real numbers. But if we have code names - we can say cool things like this:

"I think that Sticky Sessions should not be a priority in the in the MapleBacon release but instead delayed until the HoneyCruller release."

Perhaps an even cooler idea would be to use code names for releases - but each of us can make up our own code names for the releases.   Then when people monitor our mailing lists we will seem extremely clever and complex.

/Chuck



_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc