farcry 2005 = v2.4
farcry 2006 = v3.0
or Apples way
farcry X = v.24
or just keep the code name, so you can say farcry Glamour or farcry 2.4
How much work will be reqired to get any custom components to have the new PLP UI and workflow (eg file and images)?
If it is not a matter of dropping 2.3.x custom components into a 2.4.x site, then it probably should be a v3
How far away is v3 - the cfmx7 version?
How does Daeomon feel about releasing V3 and then ?months? releasing v4?
On 8/24/05, Tom Cornilliac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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/
--- 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/
