On 2013-01-04, at 12:47 , Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 01/04/2013 10:33 AM, Kathy Lussier wrote: > >> 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 > > Hello, > > It is amazing that a community can spend so much time on something presumably > simple as version numbers and what they mean. My two primary communities are > PostgreSQL and Python, by far PostgreSQL and our current version is 9.2.2. > > 9.2 is the major version, .2 is the bugfix/patchlevel/service pack level. > > Once we release a major version, the only code that is pushed into the branch > is bug fixes, no features or anything that doesn't fix a problem that has > been found. > > In the past we have also had the version number argument. We have found that > the most sane way to do it is the way it is done. Which means we may be in > the 9.x series for a very long time. This certainly hasn't hurt PostgreSQL's > popularity. > > The question is, when do we bump out of a major series to the next, say 7 to > 8 or 8 to 9. Each of these jumps were done because of very specific reasons. > When we went from 7 to 8, it was because we had native Windows support. When > we went from 8 to 9 it is because we had native replication/hot standby > support. > > Version numbers are definitely something lands lends to marketing and > advocacy. If it is not a major version update, people question if it is a > needed update and what they will get from the update. Any version numbering > change should be consistent with the goals of the project. If the project > wants to project the stability of a release, keep it within the same > numbering scheme as the previous release. If they want to promote the new > whiz bang features, then it should jump in a manner consistent with > advocating the features now available. Oddly, I find myself agreeing with all the comments made so far on this topic. However, I would like to also say that comparing Evergreen with PostgreSQL is not exactly apples to apples. Evergreen is aimed at a much wider audience, not just the IT crowd. Aleksey Lazar PALS IS Developer and Intergrator 507-389-2907 http://www.pals.org/ [email protected]
