On 6/8/05, J. Wolfgang Kaltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My confusion > > started because Lenya 1.2.3 is an odd-number release, and I assumed it > > was a development version rather than a stable production release. > > The even/odd production/development numbering scheme is ubiquitous. > Why do you say even/odd numbering schemes have a world-wide accepted > meaning ? So for instance Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were just > development releases ?
Did you use Windows? Those were definitely dev releases. Windows95 was an alpha; I was Compaq support when it was released and have many stories. Windows 96(95B) was patched to usability. Windows97 added broken USB drivers. Windows98 was OK, and Windows98.2(SE) is what I use today. Windows99(ME) was an abortion. Windows2000 was OK for internal use. Windows2001(XP) was an abortion. Windows2001.2(SP2) is almost usable, but still in development (patched often). Microsoft uses even/odd numbering. > > Does Lenya have a good reason to ignore it? > How about Apache 1.3.X ? ;) That was why I asked for reasons rather than suggesting immediate changes. I wondered if Apache (and Lenya) had decided not to use even/odd. > But seriously I'm only aware of the Linux kernel development which uses > that scheme. And even then it refers to the second number, not the > third, doesn't it ? 2.4.X kernels are stable, 2.6.X are stable as well. > So if you're referring to that numbering scheme, then Lenya is actually > trying to follow it (Lenya 1.2.X, 1.4.X) I know it does not refer to the first number. I thought all interim releases use it. It seemed a good idea. [Making this up, so please ignore the actual numbers.] 2.4.22 = stable. 2.4.23 = development release. 2.4.24 would be the final and fully tested 2.4.23 release. I like that scheme, but many projects use -alpha1 .. -alpha3, -beta1 .. 2, rc1 .. rc4, gold. Michi added, "This is why I think 1.4.X should have been named 1.3.X and after it has become really stable being "promoted" to 1.4.X. But on the other hand what means stable ;-) We should first define what stable means and write these criteria down." That added to my confusion, since it seemed 1.3 was skipped, but 1.4 was a major refactoring and would require much testing. "Stable" for Lenya should include: 1. Meets the specifications. 2. All core functionality is usable on development system. 3. No known major issues on any systems. #1 means all the specifications from the homepage and press releases must work: content creation and editing, deploy new pub, security, searching. 1.2.2 (and probably all more recent releases) do not meet those specs. #2 = All functionality in the specs for Lenya using Jetty should work on Linux(?) and Windows. #3 means major known issues such as causing Tomcat to crash also need to be solved. (Just an example. I know of no issues with Tomcat.) --- > I do agree that the Lenya homepage could be more effective: something > like "download our latest stable release", right on the front page, > available without scrolling, would probably be better. So the idea for big "Windows Download Here" link is +1? solprovider --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
