Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
This isn't something that should really be set by users of an app. It should be set by you, as you will be the one to handle user feedback and bug reports.
That being said, bigger releases are a challenge from a debugging report standpoint because you are introducing many more changes in each release compared to a smaller number of charges in more frequent releases. This is why many devops teams in corporate land try to keep releases smaller and more frequent (see also: Agile Development)
Very good point about Agile.
As an end-user (that is, the IT staff that will be deploying/managing things), I prefer less-frequent releases. I'd love to see 1 or 2 releases a year for all software (pipe dream, I know). Once you have a handful of packages, you end up with constant change to manage.
I suspect what we end up with is early adopters embracing the frequent releases, and providing feedback/error reporting, while people like me benefit from them while choosing to upgrade less frequently.
There are about 3 apps that I'm a beta tester for, so even I'm part of that early-adopter group.
The hard floor for release frequency must always be "as security issues are fixed", and those will rarely be infrequent in our current environment of ever-shifting dependencies.
If your environment is struggling to keep up with patching, you need to analyze that process and find out why it's so arduous.
As an example, I took a shop from a completely manual patch slog 10 years ago to a 97% never-touch automated process. It was hard with approvals and routines, but the numbers backed me up. When I left 2 years ago, the humans had little to do beyond validation.
The sad news is, the great loss of mentors after Y2K will be seen again after RTO, and we're not going to fix the fundamental problems that enable longer release cycles in a safe way; and so shorter update cadence will be our reality if we want to stay safe ...
... and stay bleeding-edge. Shifting from feature-driven releases to only bugfix-driven releases means no churn for features, but that's a different kind of rebasing. It's the third leg of the shine-safe-slack pyramid; choose 2.