Funny you should bring this topic up Geoff as I've been thinking about this on and off for a few weeks now. My guidelines for versioning pretty much line up with yours, hence I tend to see Glamour as a 2.4 product based on limited architectural changes and backwards compatibility issues. However, whenever I look at the UI I see a 3.0 product and that's really the crux of the issue. Users are conditioned to associate dramatic UI changes with major product releases and IMO they will judge Glamour as Farcry 3 based on the UI.
So +1 for Farcry 3 ~tom On 8/23/05, Geoff Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > We're having a bit of internal debate of the next official milestone > number or version if you like for FarCry CMS. > > Should Glamour be 2.4 or 3.0?? > > Our current philosophy really works on the basis of no primary version > number change if there is no technical backward compatability issues. > For example we moved from 1 to 2 with the release of 6.1 and the > implementation of component features only availble in 6.1. We moved > from 2.2 to 2.3 when there was a complete i18n of the admin interface > (ie. major feature change). We moved from 2.3.1 to 2.3.2 when we > released a collection of significant bug fixes and minor enhancements. > > For more gumph on this philosophy try: > The science of version numbering > http://blog.daemon.com.au/archives/000276.html > > We were not expecting a move to 3.0 until we relied on CF7 specific > functionality in the core library. > > The problem is really that although the Glamour updater should > seamlessly upgrade your current FarCry version for any CF server 6.1+, > the UI overhaul is perhaps the most dramatic change that any *user* ie > contributor of content, will have seen in the history of the product. > We will have to rewrite all user documentation and training materials to > accommodate the change. And I'm thinking that some of our major > customers (yourselves included) are going to see this as a "user > backward compatability issue". > > Don't get me wrong, the UI changes are all improvements -- really > *significant* improvements (by comparison 2.3 tortures me!). There are > little if any technical challenges anticipated in upgrading. But > perhaps we should be flagging to the community at large that this will > not be the normal, subtle, behind the scenes update you are use to with > typical FarCry upgrades. > > What do people think? > > -- geoff > http://www.daemon.com.au/ > > -- > Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content > filtering. > http://www.mailguard.com.au > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ > --- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
