[Koha] Clarifying history of PTFS feature releases

[Jane Wagner]

I'd like to clarify a few things and clear up some misconceptions about
PTFS's existing code releases (including the Harley features) that have
crept into this lengthy discussion.  This is not meant to cover our future
development and release plans; that's a separate discussion.  But comments
like the one below trouble me.

-----Original Message-----
From: koha-bounces at lists.katipo.co.nz
[mailto:koha-bounces at lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of Frederic Demians
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:09 AM
To: Chris Cormack
Cc: koha
Subject: Re: [Koha] Koha releases - Clarification/correction

> Having said that, currently the 2 people rebasing the harley code
> (developed and released by ptfs, not inherited by anyone) are the 3.2
> and 3.4 release managers, while dealing with patches and branches that
> don't need to be rebased ...... slow going.

Does it mean that Galen (3.2 RM) and you Chris (3.4 RM) are working on
Harley integration for PTFS for free? Please tell your kids, cats, wifes
and mistresses to ask directly to PTFS for food, and keep up the good
work.

--
Frédéric

-----------------


PTFS has always committed to releasing these features.  We followed the
development rules as they were established at the Koha conference in Plano
last March -- I created bugzilla entries for each of our features to let
everyone know what was in the works (roughly 70 in the end), updated
bugzilla with details and screen shots, and used the bug number for the
feature branches.  Per the discussion at the Plano conference (since
reversed), entering new features on the RFC page was not required.

We tried very hard to get the development done before the code freeze for
3.2 (the first of September).  Some of our features were released over the
summer and are now in head, but we were unable to get the rest done,
tested, and approved by the sponsoring customers before the code freeze.
At that time and at several subsequent times, various members of the
community including the release managers encouraged us to just put our
branches out on a git repository and issue a git pull request; others
would happy to help integrate them.

When we finally had the features ready to go, I said so on the IRC,
pointing out that there would be a delay in releasing because the features
would have to be rebased to current head; with the LibLime acquisition and
accompanying major development projects, our resources were stretched thin
at that point.  Again, I was encouraged by several people (you know who
you are) to just put the branches out and there would be plenty of help
integrating them.  We were told that people were anxious to get the new
features and didn't want to wait until we could allocate the resources to
rebasing and updating.  We (and others) made it clear at the time that
most if not all of these features were too late for 3.2 but would be
included for 3.4.

We did exactly as we were advised -- we released the Harley features as
individual branches (as well as an integrated install package).  And we
were praised highly for it at the time -- see the listserv archives and
IRC logs from two months ago.  Since then, I have talked with both Galen
and Chris about integrating and I noted areas where there had been
parallel development in head.  Chris developed a tracking page, and as of
last week at ALA, Galen told us he had a plan to proceed with the rebasing
and integration. (At least I think that's what I heard in a very noisy
exhibit hall.)

I am at a loss to understand why everyone is suddenly bashing us for
following the rules and the release path we were encouraged to use for
these features. Other companies and developers have followed the same
procedure (new features released on a public git repository) but that
doesn't seem to be a problem, and those features have been updated and
integrated.  A project with roughly six times the number of patches as
ours is currently being worked with resources volunteered by another
company.  Other development projects have never been entered in bugzilla
and come as a surprise when they are submitted.  Why is our process in
releasing these features a problem?

Speaking for myself personally, I am troubled by the repeated attacks on
my employer for what does not seem to be any valid reason.  This is
damaging the reputation of the entity that signs my paycheck and pays my
mortgage.  It is also potentially damaging to my professional reputation
as a project manager and developer associated with this company.

Apart from the 70-odd major features in the Harley release, we have
contributed patches ever since we began working with Koha, following the
rules and our commitment to participation in the Koha project -- I have
some 30-40 commits in my own name, let alone those from our other
developers.  We have also participated actively on the listservs, the IRC,
and the various developer meetings.  I understand that there are
differences of opinion with PTFS on various issues including future
releases, but these existing feature releases should not be one of them.

In the next few weeks, we will be releasing a very large list of sponsored
development items.  Our intent with all our development is to release it
when it is thoroughly tested and approved by the customers.  I would very
much like to clarify the desired procedures for announcing, releasing, and
integrating large projects such as these.


Jane Wagner
Library Systems Analyst
PTFS Inc.
Content Management and Library Solutions
6400 Goldsboro Road, Suite 200
Bethesda, MD  20817
(301) 654-8088 x 151
jwagner at ptfs.com