On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:20:20 PM Claus Ibsen wrote: > Hi Dan > > Do you care to discuss this? > > You keep on backporting non bug fixes, new features and whatnot. > > People who run Camel in production and they may want to upgrade to > 2.8.2 due to a bug. > They frankly do not like a lot of changes. As any change in a > production system is not desireable.
And there are even more people that are trying to move their applications from development into testing or production and cannot because they are hitting specific bugs or require some trivial features or issues to be resolved. If a user reports a bug (and even better, provides a patch), we definitely owe it to them to get that fix pulled back relatively quickly. Camel has historically done a VERY poor job of doing that. I keep talking to people that have either had to fork Camel internally to get patches applied or go to a third party to demand various things ported back. In both cases, I just cringe as that shows that we, as a community, have failed our users. Likewise, if a user needs a trivial change in order to get Camel into production, we should try and get that change to them WITHOUT a huge upgrade hassle. Things like new methods, new config options (as long as the defaults remain as before), etc... that would have no impact on existing users, but makes it possible to use Camel by a wider audience. > So the gap from 2.8.0, 2.8.1 to 2.8.2 is now very big. This is not > desireable. Compared to any CXF patch release, it's about average at this point. > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Dan what is the reason why you backport so many commits to 2.8.2 from > > 2.9? > > > > The "problem" is that its a lot of new features, non trivial bug fixes > > and whatnot. > > People then may not have a safe upgrade from 2.8.0 / 2.8.1 to 2.8.2 > > because of the "big difference". > > People is more prepared for a little trouble when doing 2.8.0 to 2.9.0 > > upgrade. But not for an upgrade in 2.8.x branch. > > > > Also for new features and whatnot we update the documentation to > > indicate eg *Camel 2.9* that > > this is a new feature in that version. These documentation changes is > > not part of the SVN and thus > > you lose this, and cannot keep the documentation <-> source code in > > sync. Yea. Docs are definitely an issue. I'll admit that. They don't really end up "wrong", but not 100% correct either. :-) If you consider a feature not "complete" until documented, and it's not documented until 2.9, then the docs are correct if they say 2.9. Yea, kind of a silly answer. Fixing the docs should definitely be done as well. I'll try and look a little at that in the next couple days. (and thanks Jon for the help!) In anycase, I'm trying to provide a usable solution for our users. This processed has worked extremely well based on past experience. If there is a particular commit that I merged back that you are particularly concerned about, feel free to bring it up. We can work on finding a solution that would solve the problem in a way with less impact on the users. Dan > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Claus Ibsen > > ----------------- > > FuseSource > > Email: cib...@fusesource.com > > Web: http://fusesource.com > > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews > > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ > > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
