Release numbering

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Hi,

Just got a doubt, would it not be better if we would not put a 0 ahead of the minor release number? Not a big deal, but it could be confused with a date. 
So I would have better R12.04.3 than R12.04.03, do you think it's worth the move?

Jacques

Re: Release numbering

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

+1 for 13.07

Jacques

On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:01 PM, jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com wrote
> I would prefer to keep the current format because the issue is minor and to avoid changes in the middle of release histories; if
> we really want to switch to this then we could do only for new branches (e.g. 13.07). 
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just got a doubt, would it not be better if we would not put a 0 ahead of the minor release number? Not a big deal, but it could
>> be confused with a date. So I would have better R12.04.3 than R12.04.03, do you think it's worth the move?
>> 
>> Jacques

Re: Release numbering

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I agree it was an unlucky choice... I don't know if it is worth of a change at this point because this may add further confusion.

Jacopo

On Jan 13, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Paul Piper <pp...@ilscipio.com> wrote:

> Yes, but that is in parts also because you have some knowledge over what
> happened in which month. Outsiders and people who don't follow the ml as
> closely do not understand this, however, and have no relation between month
> and features. To them, i fear, the version numbers are interpreted as major
> and minor and jumps in between begs to differ what happens in between the
> jumps and what was changed since...
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Release-numbering-tp4647108p4647126.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Release numbering

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Last year it was decided by the committers not to do annual releases
> anymore as it was too much a burden on the declining number of them.

A small but important point: there was no formal vote on this but the general consensus was that, if no big changes were present since the previous year's branch, the community may decide to postpone the creation of the new branch.
Also, we will still issue several releases every year: what we discussed was the creation of new release branches.

Jacopo

Re: Release numbering

[Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>]

What 'they' know and whether they can draw parrallels between is a big
thing to ask. Better to ask this in the user ML, where you will surely get
an answert. And not a person participating in this mailing list, who may
not have that indept knowledge.

Anyway, 5 years ago there might have been compelling reasons to follow the
numbering scheme now used. But that doesn't mean that it is still valid.
Last year it was decided by the committers not to do annual releases
anymore as it was too much a burden on the declining number of them. Such a
change would warrant a rethinking of this subject.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Do you think they don't know about Ubuntu way and they can't draw a
> parallel between both?
> I believe OFBiz users are not only savvy but also knowledgeable
>
> Anyway, it took me time to convince other devs about it, and I doubt they
> will want to change back now, in other words, too late, sorry
>
> Jacques
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:01 PM, pp@ilscipio.com wrote
> > Yes, but that is in parts also because you have some knowledge over what
> > happened in which month. Outsiders and people who don't follow the ml as
> > closely do not understand this, however, and have no relation between
> month
> > and features. To them, i fear, the version numbers are interpreted as
> major
> > and minor and jumps in between begs to differ what happens in between the
> > jumps and what was changed since...
>

Re: Release numbering

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Do you think they don't know about Ubuntu way and they can't draw a parallel between both?
I believe OFBiz users are not only savvy but also knowledgeable

Anyway, it took me time to convince other devs about it, and I doubt they will want to change back now, in other words, too late, sorry

Jacques

On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:01 PM, pp@ilscipio.com wrote
> Yes, but that is in parts also because you have some knowledge over what
> happened in which month. Outsiders and people who don't follow the ml as
> closely do not understand this, however, and have no relation between month
> and features. To them, i fear, the version numbers are interpreted as major
> and minor and jumps in between begs to differ what happens in between the
> jumps and what was changed since...

Re: Release numbering

[Paul Piper <pp...@ilscipio.com>]

Yes, but that is in parts also because you have some knowledge over what
happened in which month. Outsiders and people who don't follow the ml as
closely do not understand this, however, and have no relation between month
and features. To them, i fear, the version numbers are interpreted as major
and minor and jumps in between begs to differ what happens in between the
jumps and what was changed since...



--
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Release-numbering-tp4647108p4647126.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Release numbering

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

I still prefer the Ubuntu way. It makes sense to me, it adds an information about when the branch was freezed, w/o searching anywhere. Then we need to number minor releases

Jacques

On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:48 PM, pp@ilscipio.com wrote
> Hey,
> 
> truth to be told, i still think that the current version numbering is not
> understandable for outsiders. I understand that the version numbers relate
> to year and month, but all in all, it is not really major releases we do
> each year. The community simply cannot handle multiple versions a year, so
> jumping from 12.04 to 13.07 and perhaps 14.02 the following year is really
> confusing...
> 
> ... isn't there a chance to rethink the version numbers and switch back to a
> more common Major.minor.bugfix release scheme?
> 
> Food for thought...
> Paul

Re: Release numbering

[Paul Piper <pp...@ilscipio.com>]

Hey,

truth to be told, i still think that the current version numbering is not
understandable for outsiders. I understand that the version numbers relate
to year and month, but all in all, it is not really major releases we do
each year. The community simply cannot handle multiple versions a year, so
jumping from 12.04 to 13.07 and perhaps 14.02 the following year is really
confusing... 

... isn't there a chance to rethink the version numbers and switch back to a
more common Major.minor.bugfix release scheme?

Food for thought...
Paul



--
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Release-numbering-tp4647108p4647118.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Release numbering

[Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I would prefer to keep the current format because the issue is minor and to avoid changes in the middle of release histories; if we really want to switch to this then we could do only for new branches (e.g. 13.07).

Jacopo


On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just got a doubt, would it not be better if we would not put a 0 ahead of the minor release number? Not a big deal, but it could be confused with a date. 
> So I would have better R12.04.3 than R12.04.03, do you think it's worth the move?
> 
> Jacques