Hi Jesse
thank you for appreciating our work.

Re-releasing different code with the same version is not a common practice, nor 
a good one. It was just a thought to avoid the unpleasant "update from SVN" and 
also a release per day. Obviously it would be notified somehow in case (an 
additional version number could be an option).

Besides this, I understand and agree with your suggestions, feedbacks are 
always appreciated, we will take care of them.

Thanks
Alfredo

On Jun 5, 2013, at 8:29 PM, Jesse Bowling <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Alfredo Cardigliano <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Hi Doug
> we released 5.5.3 a few days ago, it is likely we refresh that tarball.
> 
> Regards
> Alfredo
> 
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Doug Burks <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Alfredo,
> >
> > Thanks for the fix!  I did a few quick tests and it appears to be
> > working properly.
> >
> > Will you be releasing a 5.5.4 tarball soon?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Doug
> >
> 
> 
> Let me preface the following by saying that I very much appreciate the cost 
> of PF_RING, the value I get from it, and the level of support that Luca, 
> Alfredo, and the rest of the PF_RING  team provide. I believe your work is 
> enabling great things to happen in the world of security monitoring, as well 
> as other areas, especially for verticals that typically have more bandwidth 
> than resources dedicated to monitoring that bandwidth (EDU for instance).
> 
> That being said...
> 
> The release cycles and bug fixes for PF_RING are a constant headache for 
> people such as myself trying to implement PF_RING in a production 
> environment. For instance, re-releasing different code with the same version 
> number doesn't let people know that there has been changes/bug fixes. This is 
> a headache not just for people who want to create packages for PF_RING, but 
> for anyone trying to track down a particular error with their version of 
> code. I don't know if bug fixes are typically released in the fashion Alfredo 
> has described, and how would I ever know?
> 
> In my years of following this product the answer to problems described on the 
> list has always been "update from SVN"...That's all well and good, but more 
> often than not I've found that I've gotten a bug fixed but introduced a new 
> one. Not knowing what state the SVN will be in makes every update a gamble, 
> even if you're testing the code. Personally, I don't have the time to do 
> extensive testing with PF_RING for every update, usually because I have to 
> update NOW because some new bug has been uncovered by the few that DO have 
> time to test (Thank you Doug, and others, by the way).
> 
> To my naive (or selfish, or "simple user") way of thinking, your SVN needs 
> branches for each release that bug fixes can be introduced to...keeping new 
> features and/or untested code out of the hands of people like myself who are 
> simple consumers of PF_RING. If that's a hassle (which it probably is), then 
> how about publishing patch files, or at least re-releasing the same version 
> with an additional version number (say, 5.5.3.1). While we're at it, a list 
> of what was fixed in that version would be very helpful for deciding when to 
> update.
> 
> This issue is something that's been on my mind for a while, so I felt I had 
> to share back to the list my thoughts. I believe that this issue is an 
> unnecessary hindrance to wider adoption of PF_RING. If wide adoption is not 
> the goal, or if there are existing methods for obtaining stable, bug-fixed 
> versions of PF_RING that I'm unaware of, my apologies. In that case, maybe 
> there should be more communication about such publication. If there are 
> resource issues (people, time, money), let's talk about them. 
> 
> I'd like to see PF_RING be THE killer open-source app for all things 
> high-speed network, but the current development and release model is a real 
> impediment to it's adoption.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to read,
> 
> Jesse
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jesse Bowling
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
[email protected]
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to