Hi all,
I've been sitting on the sidelines of this discussion because I count
myself as one of those people who doesn't particularly care about a
version numbering system, but is very concerned with consistent release
schedules and the new features/bug fixes that make up a release. The
progress that has been made in this regards over the past year has been
great.
But I would like to get behind Rogan's comment:
If we move to a new versioning scheme I just want it to have enough of
an advantage that it will be worth re-educating people who can't
follow the discussion that's on this list.
Upgrades are already stressful for staff, and explaining why the version
numbering has changed at the same time you're trying to train staff on
new functionality could be an unnecessary distraction. This is fine if
there is a big benefit that is seen from the change, but I'm not seeing
that the benefits are that great.
I disagree that there is a perception that Evergreen is stagnating
because we're still at 2.x, but if the problem is that we really should
be at 3.0 or 4.0 because of the big changes that have come with recent
releases, then maybe the solution is that we start following the
guidelines in http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=versioning.
Kathy
