On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 20:52, Dave Johnson wrote: > > For a minor release: > 1) there is no need for a long-running database upgrade script that > could > cause a site to have a significant downtime during the upgrade. > 2) after the upgrade from X.A to X.B, it should be possible to revert to > the X.A release and it will still work. In other words, the old release > will work fine with the new release's database.
yep. in my mind i hadn't add the "long-running" part for #1. my feeling is just that an upgrade is just *that* much easier when you don't even have to think about running a db script. just drop in a new WAR file (once we get there) and you're done. > > Roller 2.0 is a major release, because it fails both tests (and it adds > major > new features). It requires a long-running upgrade script (although, you > did > speed it up significantly). And, once group blogging is turned on, it's > not really > possible to back off to a 1.X release. > > Did we really mean to completely forbid any database changes at all > in minor releases? If so, comment moderation is going to have to wait > for 3.0. yes, that was my intention, but that is partly predicated on the belief that we want to stick to fairly regular releases. i like developing very incrementally, which means smaller and more focused features, and more frequent releases. if we do this then i don't think we need to allow for db scripts on every release, only every 2-3 releases. i also like the convention of only applying upgrade scripts on major releases. that way a user always knows that if it's an X.0.0 release then there is db script that needs to be run. it also saves us some work because the upgrade guides for minor releases can be small or non-existent. > > > > 3. the part about the CommentNotificationTask seems potentially > > overkill > > to me. I don't really see any reason why those emails can't go out as > > the comments/trackbacks happen. > > A user asked for that specific feature, but I think you're right, its a > "nice to have." > > > >> <http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp? > >> page=Proposal_TrackbackVerification> > > > > same thing with modifying the roller_weblogcomments table for this one. > > i think it would be okay if the for roller 2.1 there wasn't an offline > > option, so you had to use the "live" method. then we can add the > > offline option with roller 3.0 > > I guess, considering the frequency of trackbacks, we could survive with > live. I also really like your throttling idea. It's tough to say how valuable throttling would be without doing some log analysis to determine if a series of trackback spams really does come in quick batches. -- Allen > > - Dave >
