On 5 July 2011 11:22, Jonas Meurer <jo...@freesources.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Am 05.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Hanno Schlichting:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com>
>>> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
>>>> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or
>>>> 5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the
>>>> most sensible one :)
>>> Boy, that's going to be confusing. :)
>>> I'd actually favour calling it Zope2 4.0 just to avoid any mix-up with the
>>> defunct Zope 3, although I don't think there are any particularly good
>>> options here.
>> Zope2 4.0 would imply some sort of upgrade path from Zope 3 to this.
>> That's as confusing as anything else and would lead to the question
>> what happened to Zope2 3.0.
>> Since we don't market Zope2 anymore, I think there's actually much
>> less confusion from this than we'd fear. It's just an internal version
>> number used in some buildout files, not something that has any
>> particular meaning.
> I don't like either of these solutions. And I don't agree with Hanno,
> that it's 'just an internal version number'. It will show up on
> zope.org, launchpad.net, and many more places.
> I would rather bump the version number to 2.20 to highlight the major
> changes, and keep the 2 as major for Zope2 versions.
I agree with Jonas that any idea of giving a package named Zope2 a
version number that is not 2.x is only going to lead to more
confusion. For Zope2 we're used the x in 2.x.y being the major version
now anyway, the next release should be 2.14. Lets stick with our
convention until we have something that we really do want to promote
to users outside the existing development community, I expect that
will be a few years away yet.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -