Hi, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bill Erickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we decide to change, I would also vote for the Ubuntu-style naming > scheme Thomas describes. (IIRC, Jason S. was also a proponent of this > scheme). All that I ask of a version number that it increase monotonically, not be unreasonably long, and that if there are any semantics attached to the version numbering scheme that set expectations for ease of upgrades [1], that they be adhered to. I have no objection to switching to an Ubuntu-style scheme (so if we're voting, consider this a 0), though I would also point out that doing so means that we would lose the ability to increment the version number significantly to signal a truly major new release. For example, without reading the release notes, there would be nothing to indicate whether (say) Evergreen 13.10 adds just a few nice features over 13.04 or if it adds two new major functional modules. That said, I don't think that version numbers are of that much consequence in marketing Evergreen -- the advent of major new features (serials! acquisitions! robotic book returners!) matters rather more to library staff who are anticipating an upgrade. [1] For example, the PostgreSQL project's policy at http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ specifies that minor release upgrades will never require a dump/restore of the database. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: [email protected] direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
