I'd agree with Xavier and others on this one, 1.1 just doesn't cut it (nor do it justice).
Having version 1.5 gives developers a real sense, that Symfony is heading towards 2.0 - the next, incompatible, but better, version of the framework. This version should be perceived as a gateway/stepping stone towards 2.0, stimulating early adoption and lessening the fear of migration towards 2.0, since the jump from 1.5 to 2.0 won't be as psychologically daunting as previously thought. Again, assuming that proper support for migrating 1.x projects to 2.0 does exist. -Klmn On Sep 26, 2:11 pm, Xavier Lacot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi François, > > I fully agree with you, even though I fear that some people might be > frightened of BC breaks. Wouldn't a version called "1.5" be a good > compromise ? Other successful open-source projects have used this number > for major improvements (Mozilla Firefox, for instance). As the so-called > "Symfony 1.1" is not a revolution of Symfony's core, keeping the major > number "1" sounds to me the best solution. > > xavier > > Francois Zaninotto a écrit : > > > > > Hi list, > > > When I look at the trunk version of symfony, I see a lot of new and > > exciting stuff, among which: > > > - New CLI task system > > - New plugin system > > - New mixin/event system > > - Improved caching system > > - Total decoupling of objects > > - Better exceptions > > - Better routing > > - Better logging > > - Better storage > > - More factories > > - Less singletons > > - I probably forgot some > > - And many, many small improvements. > > > All in all, the question about symfony 1.1 is more "what hasn't changed" > > rather that "what has changed". The best part is that all that has > > changed almost never breaks BC, which means that existing applications > > will most of the time be able to take advantage of the new features. > > > This leads me to a marketing concern: Should we call the next release > > "symfony 1.1" or "symfony 2.0"? With all the new stuff in there, calling > > it 1.1 would really be a poor choice (especially if you compare it with > > what rails put in its 1.1...), spoiling the enhancements. On the other > > hand, calling it symfony 2.0 might frighten people, especially BC wise. > > > We know Fabien has great plans for after this next release, but their > > version number could very well be 3.0 or 4.0. > > > Last but not least, symfony 1.0 was released eight months ago, and no > > enhancement was officially published since then. I think symfony > > deserves a strong version upgrade to show that the development is very > > active. > > > What are your thoughts on the subject? > > > François > > -- > Xavier Lacot http://www.clever-age.com > Clever Age - conseil en architecture technique > Tél: +33 1 53 34 66 10 Fax: +33 1 53 34 65 20 > > Clever Age vous invite à ses > petits-déjeunershttp://www.clever-age.com/actualites/petits-dejeuners/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
