Stable branch compatibility with discourse_docker and plugins

Installation
21

I guess I’m trying to work out what you would use the tags for? If discourse_docker always works with the latest stable, you can always use the master branch of discourse_docker… :thinking:

1 Like
22

That topic doesn’t cite a specific fix or commit, if it has been resolved it would be good to see something to the affirtmative in that sense. More than happy to nuke the sed fix if so.

23

Sure, I added the github link to @Falco’s post in the other topic. Here is is: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/99dd426b12210c93c728a6a8993b9a78430b3b5e

2 Likes
24

Well, there is a reason we:

  • don’t default anyone to stable
  • don’t recommend anyone to run stable

We run thousands of instances of Discourse. And since we deploy from tests-passed we have lots of testing on that.

When you actively go away from the standard we suggest, it’s going to be less tested. Even then we issued a whole new release to fix the issue in the same day we got a good report.

5 Likes
25

I would personally agree with the idea of tagging discourse_docker with the same version as the stable release. We currently use Puppet to automate the process of bootstrapping new Docker containers, which we pin to a specific stable release of Docker (we’re in the kind of corporate environment where the idea of running “beta” software is basically a no-go). It’d be nice if I could use that same version number as a tag in the discourse_docker repo and know that the version of the launcher I’m using is going to be able to build the version of Discourse I want to build.

26

Just a note that the people who maintain the software claim that the beta branch is more reliable than stable.

2 Likes
27

Quite, we live in an age where governments practice agile principles and rapidly release software under beta to their citizens.

Here’s an idea, let’s drop the ‘b’ from stable :smiley:

5 Likes
28

I always felt farming or gardening was the best metaphor for actual software development because it is a living thing. You’re growing things and that takes regular upkeep. Get busy growin’ or get busy dyin’

4 Likes
29

So stable stale is the equivalent of a fallow field? :smiley:

1 Like
30

I get it now, but your “beta” releases being more stable than non-beta is really a confusing mixed message for the rest of the world. I get it, you are developing an in-house product, which you have interest to keep growing and up to date at all times, and you are giving it away for free to everyone, but then it seems there are two choices:

  • Use tests-passed and keep updating it every couple of days, and help you fix all the the bugs and issues
  • Let you host it for us

Surely both scenarios are win-win for Discourse as a company. I can’t blame you for that :slight_smile:

But really, you should then just remove all non-beta tags, unless you want it to be “open source with a catch”.

2 Likes
31

Running Tests-passed and upgrading when there is a beta or a specific problem is what most people do. That’s a couple of three times a year.

If you’re in a corporate environment with uptime/stability expectations, then you should run a staging server.

2 Likes
32

Next time I’ll try to do just that (will use test-passed). It’s much more clear now after you explained it.

2 Likes
33

Yeah, I’m with Tomas.

34

This has been discussed before, but I still support the unpopular opinion of running stable for stability.

Our site has been on the stable branch for about 3 years and 603.000 posts later the experience is mostly (95%) good. The roling branches were way too volatile with UI changes, breakage and other surprises. We are especially careful about introducing change to the UX.

Sure, after every major upgrade we often need to update our slightly customized themes, adapt to other changes and usually also report some bugs.

35

Just stumbled over this topic after having issues after upgrading to 2.3.10 (stable).
Some of the plugins used on our sites recently were upgraded to be compatible to more recent versions of discourse (e.g. discourse-assign). This upgrade seemed to have negative impact.

Just have changed the plugin installation to refer to stable branches of the plugins. Unfortunately not every plugin knows a stable branch. That’s an additional inconsistency within the Discourse eco system.

I do not even know if my change would have any positive impact to the Discourse installation.

Yes, please, defining stable branches within Discourse itself and all plugins would help to make it more stable. Beforehand there must be a clear definition of “stability” though :slight_smile:

Following this approach cannot be an option:
“Just a note that the people who maintain the software claim that the beta branch is more reliable than stable.”

36

Which plugins are you having trouble with?

37

at least discourse-assign.
Changed the following plugin installs to use a stable plugin branch and could solve the issue with missing SVG icons:
- git clone --branch stable https://github.com/discourse/discourse-assign.git
- git clone --branch stable https://github.com/discourse/discourse-solved.git
- git clone --branch stable https://github.com/discourse/discourse-canned-replies.git

1 Like
39

Little update for this one - I think our official plugins and theme components have a compatibility file now. :partying_face: eg: