-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 733
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Release cadence #173
Comments
Well, I generally consider Git master the best and most stable version, you should all use it :) I don't use SFTPGo in production myself so I generally would like to wait for some time to get bug reports and after 1.0 I did a big refactoring to add multi protocol support (FTP and WebDAV are not included in 1.0.0). Currently I have also less time to work on the project. I think SFTP support is in good shape and it is ready for a new release (it should be much better than 1.0.0). WebDAV and FTP could be improved but honestly I don't have a plan. Better docker support would be good to have to, see #161 I work on this project based on my free time, sorry |
Well, that's okay, it's open source. 🙂 FYI I'm considering using sftpgo in production (only the sftp part). I might be able to contribute the Dockerfile and Helm chart and share some information about running it in prod. |
Thanks for the great project BTW. 🙂 |
I think you shouldn't have big issues, several users already use it in production, I recommend using Git master and please report any problems
That would be great! Thank you |
@sagikazarmark @drakkan Dockerfile in master would be very nice. |
Hi, since 1.0.0 we added the following new features:
I think we are ready for 1.1.0 release. I'll tag a new release before the end of the next week. There are some things that I would like to support but I have no enough time now and they could be added later, for example:
thank you |
Sounds great, thanks a lot @drakkan! I think it would make sense to also provide an official Docker image with everything enabled by default. GitHub provides a free container registry: https://github.blog/2020-09-01-introducing-github-container-registry/ I'd be happy to provide a PR with a dockerfile and the necessary GHA changes if you like the idea. |
Hi, if you want to work on this I would be happy to wait for your PR before the next release, thank you! Since all configuration parameters can be enabled/disabled via env vars (thank you for working on viper), we could enable SFTP as default and the users that need FTP/WebDAV could enable them via env vars, what do you think about? |
I actually meant compiling every module into the app (I know certain parts can be disabled with build tags). Then users should be able to configure everything they want. |
Yes, I agree, we should compile all the features by default |
See #180 |
@wkoszek here you go: https://github.com/users/drakkan/packages/container/package/sftpgo Let us know what you think! |
@sagikazarmark It looks solid, thanks. I'd love to see it using a .deb or .apk package, so that the setup steps aren't replicated. I think it'd reduce the Dockerfile complexity significantly. |
I don't think it would/should affect the docker build. |
@sagikazarmark Let me rephrase: I never see replication of setup steps in
|
@wkoszek I'm not sure what "normal" Dockerfile format means, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. 🙂 The idea behind a self-contained docker file is that you can easily build a container image from the source and ship it, which is not possible if you rely on a package repository to install the software. (You certainly won't upload a deb with a custom, patched version, just to download it again) If you take a look at how software is built and shipped in container images: none of them wait for the CI to upload a deb, just to download it again. I'm obviously biased as I rarely install applications as OS packages anymore, I primarily run containers, so I don't even need those distribution formats. 🙂 |
v1.1.0 is now released. For future reference, there isn't a fixed release cadence. We have to accumulate enough new feature before tagging a new release, thank you! |
🎉 Awesome, thanks!
I'd probably add that to the readme somewhere 🙂 |
I know this has been brought up in the past, but a clearly communicated release cadence could help users a lot who wants to rely on sftpgo. Milestones, X month release cycle, or "on-demand" all work and help people understand what to expect.
Otherwise every now and then you'll receive an issue with a
New release?
title. 🙂The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: