I agree with Chris and Jason. I also think, as Galen mentioned, 2.10 is an alright version number.
Jim Jim Keenan Library Applications Supervisor [email protected] 508-755-3323 x23 C/W MARS 67 Millbrook St., Suite 201 Worcester, MA 01606 Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary. Currently reading Swansong 1945 by Walter Kempowski. -----Original Message----- From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Stephenson Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:43 AM To: Evergreen Development Discussion List Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] [RM] Call for roadmap entries for Evergreen 3.0 Quoting Chris Sharp <[email protected]>: > > I think the criterion for a "3.0" release is pretty straightforward. > If the web client will be fully usable in all major functionality > (Circulation, Cataloging, Administration, Acquisitions), with multiple > printer options and standalone in place and easily installable by a > reasonably experienced Windows administrator, we should call it 3.0 > and have a big splash news release about it. If not, I think we > should go with 2.10. > > I agree that beating the dead horse of release numbering in general is > not productive, but as with 2.0 several years ago, 3.0 should mean > more than "that number was next". I just want to say that for the most part, I agree with Chris. I'm not married to version numbers, but I've long thought 3.0 should be reserved for when the browser staff client is recommended over the XUL client. -- Jason Stephenson Assistant Director for Technology Services Merrimack Valley Library Consortium 4 High ST, Suite 175 North Andover, MA 01845 Phone: 978-557-5891 Email: [email protected]
