You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> on 2014/08/06 20:45:28 UTC
Release page outdated and inconsistent.
https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist
of 2 parts
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
already be able to be downloaded.
It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
missed 2013 altogether.
Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant
new functionality but no change to the existing data structure or
functions that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor
bug fix?
Ron
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Oops, wrong mail thread.
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I can understand that when talking about organisation specific support
> groups, and there are a few. But apart from these and the open groups, it
> seems to me that these closed groups were created to explore how far the
> OFBiz community extends in order to execute some marketing scheme (by its
> creator).
>
> We can only guess about the intentions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>>
>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
>> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut.
>> But as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a
>> cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a
>> release been cut with number 13.07.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <
>> rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>>
>>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>>
>>>
>>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist
>>> of 2 parts
>>>
>>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>>
>>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
>>> already be able to be downloaded.
>>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
>>> means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>>
>>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
>>> adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
>>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>>
>>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
>>> releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
>>> serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new
>>> functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions
>>> that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
No way to know for sure without contacting the owner.
To build a useful new group, you have to get people to join your group
and that means doing some work to get content into your group and
building a core group of contributors that recommend the group to other
LinkedIn members.
Easier to join an existing group and post stuff there.
Ron
On 06/08/2014 3:10 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I can understand that when talking about organisation specific support
> groups, and there are a few. But apart from these and the open groups,
> it seems to me that these closed groups were created to explore how
> far the OFBiz community extends in order to execute some marketing
> scheme (by its creator).
>
> We can only guess about the intentions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release
> was cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the
> time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that
> policy, resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>
> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>
> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>
>
> The description of the Release number says that release
> numbers consist of 2 parts
>
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>
> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
> should already be able to be downloaded.
> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in
> 2014 which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>
> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release
> identification was adopted but it is confusing and now
> inconsistent.
> It leads to the impression that the project is not active
> since it missed 2013 altogether.
>
> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard
> pattern of releases where the first digit indicates major
> change with some risk of serious work required to upgrade,
> second digit indicating significant new functionality but no
> change to the existing data structure or functions that are
> not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Ron,
I can understand that when talking about organisation specific support
groups, and there are a few. But apart from these and the open groups, it
seems to me that these closed groups were created to explore how far the
OFBiz community extends in order to execute some marketing scheme (by its
creator).
We can only guess about the intentions.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut.
> But as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a
> cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a
> release been cut with number 13.07.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <
> rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>
>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>
>>
>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist
>> of 2 parts
>>
>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>
>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
>> already be able to be downloaded.
>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
>> means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>
>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
>> adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed
>> 2013 altogether.
>>
>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
>> releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
>> serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new
>> functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions
>> that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 07/08/2014 16:38, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> On 07/08/2014 9:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I know the truth :p.
>> And nothing need to be fixed
>> You can apologize, I'll not mind :p
>>
> I don't owe anyone an apology since I wrote nothing that was directed against anyone but were comments on the project documentation from a new
> System Administrator's point of view.
> The version description is obscure to someone outside the project and needs to be fixed.
> However, if you feel that anything that I wrote was directed against you, I apologize for leaving you with that impression.
>
I think I took it personally because I'm at the origin of the versionning pattern and it was not easy to convince others (as Jacopo's remark shows).
And you are right there were no real reasons to apologize, it was also a kind of joke on my side.
> I think that my comments on the installation were accurate and did result in missing information being added to the docs.
Yes they were, and I fixed that indeed.
> I hope that my comments on the Download page will help other new System Administrators understand the release structure more easily.
OK, Jacopo fixed that already. Though any committers can take the burden of releasing, so far this was always done by the PMC chair in OFBiz project.
So Jacopo was the most well placed to continue on that.
> I appreciate that it is difficult to write documentation when the author is an expert in the topic.
> It is hard to put oneself into the mindset of someone who knows nothing about the product or the discussions that have gone into the design and is
> trying to learn everything that they need to know from written docs.
I think we already had this discussion, which is exactly the truth indeed and the root of most understandings
Jacques
>
>
> Ron
>
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>>>> The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13 major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder to use any of the Maven Release tools
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
>>>>> You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>>> Ron,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut.
>>>>>> But as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in
>>>>>> a release been cut with number 13.07.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
>>>>>> consist of 2 parts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>>>>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>>>>>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>>>>>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
>>>>>> should already be able to be downloaded.
>>>>>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
>>>>>> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
>>>>>> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>>>>>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
>>>>>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
>>>>>> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
>>>>>> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
>>>>>> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
>>>>>> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
>>>>>> indicating a minor bug fix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Ron Wheeler
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
>>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 07/08/2014 9:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Le 07/08/2014 14:19, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>> On 06/08/2014 5:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> My only concern about the versioning pattern is that it looks to be
>> non-standard and does not follow the practice of other Apache products.
>
> Yes I know, I'm the one who pushed for this versioning pattern, which
> follows the Ubuntu way.
> The idea is with a year and month in the release version you have more
> information than in something like 7.0.75, you know when it has been
> freezed
> Each ASF project is free to use its own versioning pattern
NP
>
>>
>> I am trying to point out that the documentation is inconsistent
>> within the page and seems not to match reality.
>> It needs to be updated by someone who knows the truth and can fix the
>> places where it needs it.
>
> I know the truth :p.
> And nothing need to be fixed
> You can apologize, I'll not mind :p
>
I don't owe anyone an apology since I wrote nothing that was directed
against anyone but were comments on the project documentation from a new
System Administrator's point of view.
The version description is obscure to someone outside the project and
needs to be fixed.
However, if you feel that anything that I wrote was directed against
you, I apologize for leaving you with that impression.
>>
>> If pointing out errors or shortcomings in the documentation is
>> "ranting". I will try to "rant" as constructively as possible.
>
> Yes thanks, but be sure to understand before, else you will get some
> other RTFMs
I am probably a good target reader.
- Native English speaker
- Undergraduate and graduate degrees in Computer Science with 40 years
of experience with about 20+ of it as System administrator (mostly
Linux) and lead software developer (Java, MySQL, Spring).
I have a pretty good idea about the documentation required to have a
smooth installation and operation.
If I can not understand the docs, then they need probably need to be
clarified.
I think that my comments on the installation were accurate and did
result in missing information being added to the docs.
I hope that my comments on the Download page will help other new System
Administrators understand the release structure more easily.
I appreciate that it is difficult to write documentation when the author
is an expert in the topic.
It is hard to put oneself into the mindset of someone who knows nothing
about the product or the discussions that have gone into the design and
is trying to learn everything that they need to know from written docs.
Ron
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>>> The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
>>>>
>>>> 13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13
>>>> major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it
>>>> harder to use any of the Maven Release tools
>>>>
>>>> I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done
>>>> since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
>>>> You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>>> Ron,
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
>>>>> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release
>>>>> was cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the
>>>>> time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that
>>>>> policy, resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>
>>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler
>>>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
>>>>> consist of 2 parts
>>>>>
>>>>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>>>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>>>>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description
>>>>> missing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>>>>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
>>>>> should already be able to be downloaded.
>>>>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in
>>>>> 2014
>>>>> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release
>>>>> identification
>>>>> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>>>>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active
>>>>> since it
>>>>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
>>>>> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with
>>>>> some
>>>>> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
>>>>> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
>>>>> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
>>>>> indicating a minor bug fix?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Ron Wheeler
>>>>> President
>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 07/08/2014 14:19, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> On 06/08/2014 5:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> My only concern about the versioning pattern is that it looks to be non-standard and does not follow the practice of other Apache products.
Yes I know, I'm the one who pushed for this versioning pattern, which follows the Ubuntu way.
The idea is with a year and month in the release version you have more information than in something like 7.0.75, you know when it has been freezed
Each ASF project is free to use its own versioning pattern
>
> I am trying to point out that the documentation is inconsistent within the page and seems not to match reality.
> It needs to be updated by someone who knows the truth and can fix the places where it needs it.
I know the truth :p.
And nothing need to be fixed
You can apologize, I'll not mind :p
>
> If pointing out errors or shortcomings in the documentation is "ranting". I will try to "rant" as constructively as possible.
Yes thanks, but be sure to understand before, else you will get some other RTFMs
Jacques
>
> Ron
>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>> The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
>>>
>>> 13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13 major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
>>>
>>> I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder to use any of the Maven Release tools
>>>
>>> I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
>>> You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>>> Ron,
>>>>
>>>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But
>>>> as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a
>>>> release been cut with number 13.07.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>
>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>>>
>>>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
>>>> consist of 2 parts
>>>>
>>>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>>>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>>>
>>>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>>>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
>>>> should already be able to be downloaded.
>>>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
>>>> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
>>>> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>>>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
>>>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
>>>> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
>>>> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
>>>> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
>>>> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
>>>> indicating a minor bug fix?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> -- Ron Wheeler
>>>> President
>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 06/08/2014 5:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Did you read up to the "Release Information" section?
Yes. I pointed out the inconsistencies in that section
>
> OFBiz is not in Maven, we don't support Maven, we use Ant and Ivy and
> we are happy about it.
>
NP. Since I am more interested in contributing to documentation and
unlikely to add much code or do builds, it does not affect me.
> No pressure at all, we are free to release when we are ready, that's all.
>
> Maybe you now got a chance to read the "Release Information" section
> (and yes this is ironic), in any case, if you did not get yet what
> 13.07 means: it means that the last release branch was friezed in July
> 2013 and since only bug fixes are committed in this branch. You are
> free to not like it, and to continue to rant :p
>
That is not clear from the release section. It says that 13.01 should
have been the first release.
The 13.07 release date is June 2014 but it does not seem to be on the
download library.
> Note: this is only my opinion (ie it's not on behalf of the PMC),
> anyone is free to have his/her own. But let's face it, that's how it
> works!
>
My only concern about the versioning pattern is that it looks to be
non-standard and does not follow the practice of other Apache products.
I am trying to point out that the documentation is inconsistent within
the page and seems not to match reality.
It needs to be updated by someone who knows the truth and can fix the
places where it needs it.
If pointing out errors or shortcomings in the documentation is
"ranting". I will try to "rant" as constructively as possible.
Ron
> Jacques
>
> Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>> The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
>>
>> 13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13
>> major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
>>
>> I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder
>> to use any of the Maven Release tools
>>
>> I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done
>> since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
>> You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>>> Ron,
>>>
>>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
>>> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release
>>> was cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the
>>> time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that
>>> policy, resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre Smits
>>>
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler
>>> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>>
>>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>>
>>>
>>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
>>> consist of 2 parts
>>>
>>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>>
>>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
>>> should already be able to be downloaded.
>>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
>>> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>>
>>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
>>> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
>>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>>
>>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
>>> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
>>> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
>>> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
>>> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
>>> indicating a minor bug fix?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> -- Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Did you read up to the "Release Information" section?
OFBiz is not in Maven, we don't support Maven, we use Ant and Ivy and we are happy about it.
No pressure at all, we are free to release when we are ready, that's all.
Maybe you now got a chance to read the "Release Information" section (and yes this is ironic), in any case, if you did not get yet what 13.07 means:
it means that the last release branch was friezed in July 2013 and since only bug fixes are committed in this branch. You are free to not like it, and
to continue to rant :p
Note: this is only my opinion (ie it's not on behalf of the PMC), anyone is free to have his/her own. But let's face it, that's how it works!
Jacques
Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
>
> 13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13 major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
>
> I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder to use any of the Maven Release tools
>
> I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
> You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
>
>
> Ron
>
> On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But
>> as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a
>> release been cut with number 13.07.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>>
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>
>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>
>>
>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
>> consist of 2 parts
>>
>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>
>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
>> should already be able to be downloaded.
>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
>> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>
>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
>> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
>> missed 2013 altogether.
>>
>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
>> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
>> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
>> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
>> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
>> indicating a minor bug fix?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> -- Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13 major
version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder to
use any of the Maven Release tools
I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done
since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
Ron
On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Ron,
>
> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
> numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was
> cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to
> release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy,
> resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>> wrote:
>
> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>
> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>
>
> The description of the Release number says that release numbers
> consist of 2 parts
>
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>
> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
> should already be able to be downloaded.
> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
> which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>
> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
> was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
> missed 2013 altogether.
>
> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
> of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
> risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
> significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
> structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
> indicating a minor bug fix?
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> <ma...@artifact-software.com>
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Actually, the delay was to give time for several refactorings to be
backported from the trunk to the release branch.
A release branch can be created at any time by any committer, so the
timing has nothing to do with the number of available committers.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 8/6/2014 8:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Ron,
>
> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering
> OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But as
> the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut
> takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a release
> been cut with number 13.07.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>
>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>
>>
>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist of
>> 2 parts
>>
>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>
>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
>> already be able to be downloaded.
>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
>> means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>
>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
>> adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed
>> 2013 altogether.
>>
>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
>> releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
>> serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new
>> functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions
>> that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Ron,
In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering
OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But as
the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut
takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a release
been cut with number 13.07.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>
wrote:
> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>
> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>
>
> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist of
> 2 parts
>
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>
> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
> already be able to be downloaded.
> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
> means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>
> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
> adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed
> 2013 altogether.
>
> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
> releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
> serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new
> functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions
> that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Your changes sound much clearer to me.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 8/7/2014 3:16 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler
>> <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first
>>> release of the 13 series.
>> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
>>
>>> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if
>>> specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second
>>> etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the
>>> release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents
>>> the latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
>> Exactly,
>>
>> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and
>> so on.
>> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is
>> "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our
>> major release number is in the format: YY.MM
>> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number
>> (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now
>> may add further confusion.
> I get it now.
> That is a very non-standard way to version things.
>
> Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this
> clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning.
> Possible change:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number> where:"
> could be changed to:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual
> is coming and needs to be read carefully.
>
> "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April
> (09.04, 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not
> true for the current active release "13.07"
>
> Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by
> eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage
> within Apache that is different.
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze
> Date>.<Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> <Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are
> the year and month of the date of the feature freeze;
> <Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is
> the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given
> Release Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest
> Release Freeze Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for
> the Release Freeze Date you are using.
>
> The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern
> to the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient.
>
>
> This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not
> released.
> "Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series:
> June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01
> August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02
> March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03
> September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04
> April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)"
>
> I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time
> to fix these as well.
>
>
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ron,
I have updated the description and I have included your recommendations; please have a look now.
Jacopo
On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first release of the 13 series.
>> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
>>
>>> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents the latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
>> Exactly,
>>
>> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
>> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major release number is in the format: YY.MM
>> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add further confusion.
> I get it now.
> That is a very non-standard way to version things.
>
> Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning.
> Possible change:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release Number>.<Minor Release Number> where:"
> could be changed to:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release Number>.<Minor Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual is coming and needs to be read carefully.
>
> "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April (09.04, 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not true for the current active release "13.07"
>
> Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage within Apache that is different.
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze Date>.<Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> <Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are the year and month of the date of the feature freeze;
> <Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given Release Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest Release Freeze Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for the Release Freeze Date you are using.
>
> The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern to the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient.
>
>
> This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not released.
> "Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series:
> June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01
> August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02
> March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03
> September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04
> April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)"
>
> I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time to fix these as well.
>
>
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first release of the 13 series.
> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
>
>> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents the latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
> Exactly,
>
> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major release number is in the format: YY.MM
> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add further confusion.
I get it now.
That is a very non-standard way to version things.
Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this
clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning.
Possible change:
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
Number>.<Minor Release Number> where:"
could be changed to:
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
Number>.<Minor Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual
is coming and needs to be read carefully.
"a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April
(09.04, 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not
true for the current active release "13.07"
Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by
eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage
within Apache that is different.
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze
Date>.<Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
<Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are
the year and month of the date of the feature freeze;
<Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is
the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given
Release Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest
Release Freeze Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for
the Release Freeze Date you are using.
The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern
to the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient.
This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not
released.
"Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series:
June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01
August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02
March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03
September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04
April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)"
I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time
to fix these as well.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 07/08/2014 9:53 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> Le 07/08/2014 15:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and
>> so on.
>> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is
>> "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our
>> major release number is in the format: YY.MM
>> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number
>> (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now
>> may add further confusion.
>
> Can't we say that it follows the Ubuntu way, is that so creasy? I'm
> alone in this world to know that Ubuntu exists? What about Windows 95,
> 98?
It is not crazy but not everyone has run Ubuntu or knows how they work
with versions.
Redhat has a completely different pattern which is different from Centos
and Fedora.
Windows might in fact be crazy and if you have ever had to support
Windows users you would know that it is sometimes hard to get a straight
answer about versions from end-users since they confuse MS-Office with
Operating Systems in an enterprise setting where the server is running
Windows-2008 supporting Windows-7 desktops using MS-Office 2011.
I hope that my suggestions for amending the docs will help clarify the
version pattern to new System Administrators who are just trying to be
comfortable with the pattern of releases.
Ron
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Date_of_Release
>
> I don't like numbers like 7.0.75, really not!
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 07/08/2014 15:53, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
> Le 07/08/2014 15:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
>> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major
>> release number is in the format: YY.MM
>> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add
>> further confusion.
>
> Can't we say that it follows the Ubuntu way, is that so creasy? I'm alone in this world to know that Ubuntu exists? What about Windows 95, 98?
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Date_of_Release
>
> I don't like numbers like 7.0.75, really not!
I mean what Java 7.0.67 tells me apart that Oracle has not been able yet to provide a 7.1 version?
With 12.04.3 I know that I have all the feature up to April 2012 and the bug fixes since!
Please guys expand your mind
Jacques
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 07/08/2014 15:08, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major release number is in the format: YY.MM
> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add further confusion.
Can't we say that it follows the Ubuntu way, is that so creasy? I'm alone in this world to know that Ubuntu exists? What about Windows 95, 98?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Date_of_Release
I don't like numbers like 7.0.75, really not!
Jacques
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
>
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first release of the 13 series.
No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents the latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
Exactly,
and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major release number is in the format: YY.MM
Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add further confusion.
Jacopo
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
On 07/08/2014 12:44 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>
>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
> I guess you meant 11.04.05... it should be released in a few days (the voting thread is going on right now in the dev list).
> Approx at the same time we will also release 12.04.04.
>
>>
>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist of 2 parts
>>
>> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
The description of the patch number is missing. The description says
that 12..04 is the way that a release is named. It does not allow 12.04.04.
> Major Release Number: 13.07 or 12.04 or 11.04 (they mean July 2013/ April 2012/ April 2011 i.e. the dates the release branch was created i.e. from that time one only bug fixes are backported from trunk)
That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first
release of the 13 series.
"<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if
specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second
etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the
release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents the
latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
> Jacopo
>
>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should already be able to be downloaded.
>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>
>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed 2013 altogether.
>>
>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>
> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
I guess you meant 11.04.05... it should be released in a few days (the voting thread is going on right now in the dev list).
Approx at the same time we will also release 12.04.04.
>
>
> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist of 2 parts
>
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
Major Release Number: 13.07 or 12.04 or 11.04 (they mean July 2013/ April 2012/ April 2011 i.e. the dates the release branch was created i.e. from that time one only bug fixes are backported from trunk)
Jacopo
>
> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should already be able to be downloaded.
> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>
> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed 2013 altogether.
>
> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>
>
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>