[Rt-devel] Development roadmap
dominic.hargreaves at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Tue May 10 03:47:25 EDT 2011
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:17:05AM -0500, Robert Nesius wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:58:17PM -0500, Robert Nesius wrote:
> > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Dominic Hargreaves <
> > dominic.hargreaves at oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 10:47:39AM -0400, Kevin Falcone wrote:
> > > > If you can get a request-tracker4 packages instead of
> > > > request-tracker40/request-tracker42 it would make us all very happy.
> > >
> > > Could you expand on how that would particularly affect you as
> > > upstreams?
> > >
> > It implies stable api's and database schemas, yeah? If RT 4.0 is RT 4.2
> > RT 4.4 is RT4.... I'm expecting upgrades to not cause my database to blow
> > up, or even change. I'm not saying my expectations are reasonably
> > or accurate. I'm just saying that's what I'd instinctively expect. If
> > wrong someone set me straight.
I expect Kevin et al can comment on any policies, but as far as know
there is nothing prohibiting database content or schema changes in
point releases. That said, it seems that the only schema change during
the 3.8 series was a PostgreSQL index. The database *content* did change
several times (in 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.4, 3.8.6, 3.8.8). Note that
if you use the dbconfig-based automatic database configuration, these
changes will be automatically applied on package upgrade.
You're right that (if past experience is anything to go by) the change
from 4.0 to 4.2 is likely to involve more invasive database changes).
At this point I'm inclined to release RT4 packages as
request-tracker4; this at least gives us either option. If anyone
thinks this is a bad idea, now would be the time to speak up.
Dominic Hargreaves, Systems Development and Support Team
Computing Services, University of Oxford
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the rt-devel