[sakai2-tcc] Sakai CLE survey

[Jean-Francois Leveque]

When you perform your next Sakai CLE upgrade, which code base will you use ?

J-F

On 17/01/2013 14:25, Anthony Whyte wrote:
> "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