Hi Ron, I have updated the description and I have included your recommendations; please have a look now.
Jacopo On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Ron Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first >>> release of the 13 series. >> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully. >> >>> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) >>> is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given >>> Major Release Number you should always use the release with the highest >>> Minor Release Number because it represents the latest bug fix release for >>> the Major Release Number you are using." >> Exactly, >> >> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on. >> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is >> "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major >> release number is in the format: YY.MM >> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I >> mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add >> further confusion. > I get it now. > That is a very non-standard way to version things. > > Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this > clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning. > Possible change: > "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release Number>.<Minor > Release Number> where:" > could be changed to: > "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release Number>.<Minor > Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:" > This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual is > coming and needs to be read carefully. > > "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April (09.04, > 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not true for the > current active release "13.07" > > Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by > eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage within > Apache that is different. > "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze Date>.<Release > Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:" > <Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are the > year and month of the date of the feature freeze; > <Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is the > first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given Release > Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest Release Freeze > Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for the Release Freeze > Date you are using. > > The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern to > the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient. > > > This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not released. > "Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series: > June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01 > August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02 > March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03 > September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04 > April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)" > > I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time to > fix these as well. > > > >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: [email protected] > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >
