Am Sat, 09 May 2009 02:50:27 -0700 schrieb Alexander Limi: > On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:26:37 -0700, Alec Mitchell > <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote: > >> If you want to pinpoint a release that broke expectations with regard >> to compatibility, Plone 2.1 is a far better example. > > Just to make sure history is represented correctly here — Alec is > absolutely right. > > Plone 2.5 was a well-managed release, 2.1 was a disaster (from a release > management perspective). Luckily, we've had incredible release managers > and good processes from Alec going forward — and we're extremely > fortunate in that regard.
I agreed 100%. Anyway, the version numbering was not simple to understand. 2.0 -> 2.1 was from the number of changes a major. and by changing to PAS in 2.5 it was also kind of major (breaking existing installations). In past it was very difficult to explain to customers and even to new developers. Now with "3.x only change minor and upgrades are simple" statement all are very happy! The current plan to name it 4.0 is in my opinion very good, even if the changes are not that major than first planned. just my 0,02 Euro -- Jens W. Klein - Klein & Partner KEG - BlueDynamics Alliance _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
