Compatibilidad de la rama estable con discourse_docker y plugins

Soporte Instalación
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:

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: FIX: We need a newer mini_racer for ruby 2.6.3 · discourse/discourse@99dd426 · GitHub

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.

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.

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:

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’

29

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

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”.

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.

32

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

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

Acabo de toparme con este tema después de tener problemas tras actualizar a la versión 2.3.10 (estable).
Algunos de los complementos utilizados en nuestros sitios recientemente se actualizaron para ser compatibles con versiones más recientes de Discourse (por ejemplo, discourse-assign). Esta actualización pareció tener un impacto negativo.

Acabo de cambiar la instalación de los complementos para que hagan referencia a las ramas estables de los mismos. Desafortunadamente, no todos los complementos tienen una rama estable. Eso es una inconsistencia adicional dentro del ecosistema de Discourse.

Ni siquiera sé si mi cambio tendrá algún impacto positivo en la instalación de Discourse.

Sí, por favor, definir ramas estables dentro del propio Discourse y en todos los complementos ayudaría a hacerlo más estable. Sin embargo, antes debe haber una definición clara de “estabilidad” :slight_smile:

Seguir este enfoque no puede ser una opción:
“Solo una nota: las personas que mantienen el software afirman que la rama beta es más confiable que la stable.”

36

¿Con qué complementos estás teniendo problemas?

37

al menos discourse-assign.
Se cambiaron las siguientes instalaciones de plugins para utilizar una rama estable del plugin y esto podría resolver el problema con los iconos SVG faltantes:
- git clone --branch stable GitHub - discourse/discourse-assign: Plugin for assigning users to a topic · GitHub
- git clone --branch stable GitHub - discourse/discourse-solved: Allow accepted answers on topics · GitHub
- git clone --branch stable GitHub - discourse/discourse-canned-replies: Adds a means to insert templates from the composer. · GitHub

39

Pequeña actualización para esto: creo que nuestros plugins y componentes de temas official ahora tienen un archivo de compatibilidad. :partying_face: por ejemplo: