Compatibilité de la branche stable avec discourse_docker et les plugins

Soutien 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 « J'aime »
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

2 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
29

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

1 « J'aime »
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”.

3 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
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 « J'aime »
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

Je suis tombé par hasard sur ce sujet après avoir rencontré des problèmes suite à la mise à niveau vers la version 2.3.10 (stable). Certains plugins utilisés récemment sur nos sites ont été mis à jour pour être compatibles avec des versions plus récentes de Discourse (par exemple, discourse-assign). Cette mise à jour semble avoir eu un impact négatif.

Je viens de modifier l’installation des plugins pour qu’ils fassent référence aux branches stables. Malheureusement, tous les plugins ne disposent pas d’une branche stable. C’est une incohérence supplémentaire au sein de l’écosystème Discourse.

Je ne sais même pas si mon changement aura un impact positif sur l’installation de Discourse.

Oui, s’il vous plaît, définir des branches stables au sein de Discourse lui-même et pour tous les plugins aiderait à le rendre plus stable. Cependant, il faut d’abord avoir une définition claire de la « stabilité » :slight_smile:

L’approche suivante ne peut pas être une option :
« Juste une remarque : les personnes qui maintiennent le logiciel affirment que la branche beta est plus fiable que la branche stable. »

36

Avec quels plugins rencontrez-vous des problèmes ?

37

au moins discourse-assign.
Les installations des plugins suivantes ont été modifiées pour utiliser une branche stable du plugin et pourraient résoudre le problème des icônes SVG manquantes :
- 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

1 « J'aime »
39

Petite mise à jour pour celle-ci - Je pense que nos plugins et composants de thème #officiels ont maintenant un fichier de compatibilité. :partying_face: par ex. :