I would disagree. It's not this one: http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=versioning
But, I would propose that we are following one based largely on the developer's perception of what are major and minor features and impact for users. I've been there for a few of those discussions and those were the concerns voiced when discussing version numbers. Unintentional? I can't speak to that. But, to me what is already being done, as abstract and ill defined as it is (and I think that is part of what bothers some) - works. I'm fine with things as they are. It works with the larger community's goals (or at least mine) and a raw number means something to the front line users. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013-01-04, at 12:04 , Rogan Hamby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > I think the main advantage of moving to a new versioning scheme would be > that there currently isn't one that is being followed, so I could argue > that currently Evergreen does not have a versioning scheme. > > Aleksey Lazar > PALS > IS Developer and Intergrator > 507-389-2907 > http://www.pals.org/ > [email protected] > > > > -- ---------------------------- Rogan Hamby Headquarters Manager, York County Library System "You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me." -- C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
