Jolla apps - Make updates independent of SailfishOS updates [answered]
asked 2015-02-27 19:01:13 +0300
I think, it is currently the case that Jolla made apps (Browser, Clock, Mail, Documents, Calendar, Calculator, etc) get updates only along with SailfishOS updates! I can understand huge changes like browser UI revamp or Maps feature updates changes that involve various package changes / dependencies may need to be tied with OS updates. I also appreciate the fact that update cycle for OS is itself planned to be monthly. However, minor bug fixes / memory leaks / security patches ** could be released independently, IMO.
This is a request to express our wish that we expect Jolla made App fixes / features to be made available when they are ready. It looks like they're now waiting for update cycle. Also, users may want to update Apps without updating OS in some cases? Just update the Jolla apps from Store.
Keen to hear your views. Don't forget to vote to indicate your support.
Currently, there is no technical limitation as far as i checked* and is only an issue of resources.
- I raised this on Twitter with Mr. Stefano Mosconi and he responded as follows
yes of course we can. We just don't have big enough team to have separate QA processes so they are coalesced.
** Few minor bug examples:
- https://together.jolla.com/question/83724/portraitlandscape-mode-inconsistent-in-sailfish-office/
- https://together.jolla.com/question/79724/bug-new-note-colour-in-notes-app-defaults-to-white/
- https://together.jolla.com/question/21259/bug-cant-divide-by-previous-result-in-calculator/
- https://together.jolla.com/question/38050/documents-app-buggy-while-deleting/
Update: Given the frequency of updates these days, it makes more sense prolly to offer small features / bug fixes as separate updates..
Yes, definitely needed. Especially if you fix any security hole in the browser or other app. It's kind of an overkill to ask the user to upgrade the OS to upgrade the apps ...
sifartech ( 2015-02-27 21:10:19 +0300 )editI'm afraid that it might increase the burden on testing because those updates would be necessary to test against current stable release, possibly even against older releases instead of just testing them in regular QA on new release. Currently updates roll out pretty fast, so I'm not convinced that such move would be worth trade off. At least for now.
MSH ( 2015-02-28 10:27:23 +0300 )edit@MSH - Hmm...Even Mr. Stefano made a mention about QA and I agree. But update cycle has not been consistent - with some updates being opt-in. (eg: Update 9) Do you think even small updates to Apps also should wait for opt-in? Also, how are other App developers doing it?
anandrkris ( 2015-02-28 14:10:28 +0300 )edit@MSH - The point made by you ignores the reality that many of us don't upgrade to new OS releases immediately. So really, the choice being offered to us is to forgo stability by upgrading to a newer OS version (with potential bugs and / or regressions) or use apps with potential security holes / bugs (even if they have been fixed). If, as you say, workload for the testers will increase, then management should figure out how the process can be changed so that the burden is shared / reduced. For example, every alternate month can be dedicated to only app fixes and releases, and the next month for OS fixes and releases. (We Jolla users promise to be patient :).
sifartech ( 2015-02-28 15:10:24 +0300 )editThe reverse should also happen: unless necessary, it should not be required to upgrade apps while upgrading SailfishOS (i.e. keep OS upgrades as lean as possible).
simosagi ( 2015-03-11 16:18:06 +0300 )edit