[sakai2-tcc] Sakai CLE survey

[Anthony Whyte]

"t. . . type of a Sakai release . . ." is poor phrasing.  The maintenance branch does not equate to a Sakai release irrespective of how some schools like to use it.

Anth  


On Jan 17, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:

> I would say that what you are describing seems based on an official release tag. Probably most institutions add fixes, extra tools or update tools. An example of the custom/other I think would be what Rutgers did, when they took a non-official release tag of 2.9 and based their instance on that. I think Rice did the same thing.
> 
> Maybe the wording should say:
> 
> What type of Sakai release will your upgrade be based on?
> 
> -- Neal
> 
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque <jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr> wrote:
> 
>> I only have one question.
>> 
>> On 16/01/2013 22:40, Anthony Whyte wrote:
>>> Suggested edits to last year's survey:
>>> 
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> 
>>> 5. What type of Sakai release do you use? --> When you perform your next
>>> Sakai CLE upgrade, what code will you use?
>>> Official release tag (e.g. 2.6.3, 2.7.1, 2.8.2, 2.9.0, etc.)
>>> Maintenance branch code (e.g. 2.7.x, 2.8.x, etc.)
>>> Other (trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
>>> 
>>> Note: the original question sets up a false equivalency between the
>>> options. Maintenance branch or "other" code is not the same as tagged
>>> release code.
>> 
>> If the code I use is based on an official release tag but I add fixes, 
>> extra tools, or update tools, how much change is needed to make it a 
>> "custom local build" Other ?
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Anth
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> J-F
>> 
>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Charles Severance wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes - this is a good idea. It should be the Sakai CLE survey.
>>>> 
>>>> /Chuck
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>> -AZ
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Neal Caidin
>>>>> <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
>>>>> <mailto:nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Based on TCC discussion today, I would presume the best course of
>>>>>> action is
>>>>>> to remove OAE from the survey this time around (as an option for
>>>>>> upgrading
>>>>>> instead of, or hybrid to CLE). Agreed?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If so, then just a couple of minor questions and the survey will be
>>>>>> ready
>>>>>> for TCC review and community consumption.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Neal
>> _______________________________________________
>> sakai2-tcc mailing list
>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc