[kforge-dev] Releasing v1.0

John Bywater john.bywater at appropriatesoftware.net
Fri Feb 5 16:12:19 UTC 2010

Dear Rufus,

Rufus Pollock wrote:
> Dear John (and all other interested parties),
> I was wondering what plan was for releasing v1.0 of KForge. I see
> milestone here is scheduled for end of April:
> <http://knowledgeforge.net/kforge/trac/milestone/v1.0>

It's a good question. I've been preparing the 0.18 release (of KForge 
with the 0.8 release of DomainModel).


They could use some testing (;-) ;-)), and can be installed with the 
(much improved) installer using the --kforge-requirement-or-url and the 
--domainmodel-requirement-or-url options (see --help for details):

$ wget http://appropriatesoftware.net/provide/docs/kforge-virtualenv
$ chmod +x kforge-virtualenv
$ kforge-virtualenv [OPTIONS] PATH

I'm sure the documentation isn't finished, because I've separated the 
installation of the KForge system from the setting up of a KForge 
service. By default the installer does both. But you can do it 
separately by using the --skip-service-setup installer option, and then 
create services by using the installed kforge-makeconfig program, 
followed by kforge-admin setup command. It's under test now that I've 
also updated Provide's KForge plugin to drive KForge using these 
features, and written tests to install and setup KForge with different 
versions of dependencies in combination with different database types.

There is still one failing test when setup with --db-type=mysql.

I'm dropping support for Django < 1.0.

I'd be happy for 0.18 to be a release candidate for 1.0.

> Looking through tickets here I see there are twenty outstanding items:
> <http://knowledgeforge.net/kforge/trac/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&group=status&milestone=v1.0>
> Quite a few of these are new features (in particular new plugins) and
> I'm wondering whether they should be deferred until *after* v1.0 so
> that we can focus on stability, packaging, documentation etc (I also
> wonder whether some of these tickets such an arch or cvs plugin should
> be done at all in core -- I'd prefer to leave these to interested
> parties to provide).

Yes, I agree that nothing major should now be added before 1.0. We 
should continue to focus on stability, packing, documentation etc. The 
arch and cvs tickets are for matching features of systems listed on the 
Wikipedia "forge comparison" page and are a low priority also for me.

I've got people waiting for the next release of ScanBooker, so I'm 
hoping to ship domainmodel-0.8, kforge-0.18, and scanbooker-0.23 in the 
next week or two (the only problem being that I won't have any time!).

Best wishes,


> Regards,
> Rufus

More information about the kforge-dev mailing list