The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.

13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13 major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.

I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it harder to use any of the Maven Release tools

I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
You are committing to a release month before you start the work.


Ron

On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Ron,

In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.


Regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.

    Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?


    The description of the Release number says that release numbers
    consist of 2 parts

       "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
       Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
    but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.

    The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
    It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
    should already be able to be downloaded.
    It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014
    which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.

    I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification
    was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
    It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it
    missed 2013 altogether.

    Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
    of releases where the first digit indicates major change with some
    risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
    significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
    structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
    indicating a minor bug fix?



    Ron

-- Ron Wheeler
    President
    Artifact Software Inc
    email: [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    skype: ronaldmwheeler
    phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>




--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Reply via email to