[cle-release-team] Lessons new version

[Steve Swinsburg]

Hi Chuck,

Database changes are generally ok, and would be included in the next conversion script, ie 2.9.0-2.9.1 or 2.9.1-2.9.2 depending on what version this was ready for. This is true in the case of bugfixes that require db changes. 

However the fact that it is a new feature going to a maintenance branch generally means no, however there have been exceptions.

What should happen is you commit the feature to trunk and let it sit for a while and be tested, then make a request to the TCC or it to be merged back. We will then assess in accordance with the Maintenance Branch Merge Policy: https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/Maintenance+Branch+Merge+Policy

So as you mention, this might be best for 2.9.2 or even 2.9.3 next year, after it's had considerable testing.

A couple of things that concern me:
It alarms me that you describe the feature as dangerous.
Lack of maintenance of the tool overall. This tool is obviously under active development but now that Lessons is a core tool, it needs to be done in a way that fixes can be backported and maintenance continues. 

cheers,
Steve



On 25/11/2012, at 11:18 PM, Hedrick Charles <hedrick at rutgers.edu> wrote:

> Later today I'm going to put out for testing a version of Lessons that lets you designate student content pages as owned by groups rather than individuals. If you grade a page, the grade goes to every member in the group, and anyone in the group can edit the page.
> 
> This is one of the two major features I'm hoping to do for Spring. The other is inline questions. We see regular need for both. (The inline questions depends upon my getting a few weeks from the original developer, which it looks like will probably happen.)
> 
> Both of these things are going to require database changes. The group-based student content is probably the more dangerous of the two.
> 
> What is your feeling about putting this in 2.9.x? Is there a rule against database changes in dot releases? My concern, as always, is that I'm not going to be able to do very active maintenance of two versions. Once Rutgers moves to a new version, as we will for the Spring, my best testing also moves. So allowing 2.9.x to fall behind has costs. However I would want significant testing before putting any of this in 2.9.x, probably in production at Rutgers. I think that means not 2.9.1, even though it will be ready, though you may have other thoughts.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cle-release-team mailing list
> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20121126/726581dc/attachment-0006.html