[request-tracker-maintainers] 4.2?

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 10:12:26AM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 04:58:06PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

> > The big question in my mind is about whether we need to rename the
> > package to request-tracker4.2. I'd prefer not to because it's more
> > work both for the package maintainer and for users, but there are couple
> > of reasons for doing so:
> > 
> > * API incompatibilty for extensions? Need to check upstream
> 
> Do we have an obligation for keeping API compatibility here if we
> ship 4.2 as request-tracker4?
> 
> Are you thinking of packaged extensions and partial upgrades?  Stable has just
>  rt4-extension-authenexternalauth
>  rt4-extension-assettracker
> and a couple of Breaks entries should be enough even in the case of API
> incompatibility, no?

Breaks won't cover locally-installed extensions, which is probably
quite a common case. 
 
> > * Allow coinstallability for testing upgrades (not a particularly
> >   compelling reason; testing should probably be done on another host
> >   anyway)
> 
> I've enjoyed this in the past, but I agree it's probably not worth
> the effort.
> 
> > * Giving the users the choice of 4.0 or 4.2 whilst both are maintained
> >   upstream. This would mean that RT 4.2 could hit unstable sooner.
> 
> We don't want to release with both, do we?

No, but we might want users to have the option of 4.0 backports for
a while longer. But maybe I'm just trying to keep everyone happy and
doomed to failure :)

> Assuming upgrades work OK, I'm for keeping the package name at
> request-tracker4.

Thanks. I really want to go for this option too as it's so much 
neater...

Cheers,
Dominic.