[OPEN-ILS-DEV] After 2.2 naming / schedule

[Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich]

> I vote for 2.3, with a corollary of changing "major feature release"
> criteria to "minor feature release would be 2 digits otherwise".
> Infrastructure is pretty much always changing.
> 
> For example, the next releases would be:
> 
> 2.3
> 2.4
> ...
> 2.9
> 3.0 (to avoid 2.10)

I agree with 2.3 for the next release.  September 2012, right?

Beyond that, I just wanted to comment that if we stick with the 2.x numbering until version 3.0 would roll around, at the speed of two releases per year we would have version 3.0 in March of 2016.  I agree that versioning can be pretty arbitrary, but psychologically and from marketing perspective, that could make the project appear stagnating.

Alexey Lazar
PALS
Information System Developer and Integrator
507-389-2907
http://www.mnpals.org/

On May 15, 2012, at 10:53 , Dan Scott wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bill Erickson <erickson at esilibrary.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> As we look toward planning the next release of Evergreen (after 2.2), there are a couple of simple, but important questions we need to answer.
>> 
>> 1. Is it time to jump to 3.0 or do we stay with 2.3?
>> 
>> I'm not aware of any significant architectural changes (e.g. changing PG versions) on the horizon, which would suggest we stick with 2.3.  Perhaps it's too early to tell?
>> 
>> For reference: http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=versioning
> 
> I vote for 2.3, with a corollary of changing "major feature release"
> criteria to "minor feature release would be 2 digits otherwise".
> Infrastructure is pretty much always changing.
> 
> For example, the next releases would be:
> 
> 2.3
> 2.4
> ...
> 2.9
> 3.0 (to avoid 2.10)
> 
>> 2. Do we return to the originally proposed March/September release schedule?
>> 
>> My impression is there's a general consensus to do this.  It would lead to a shortened development cycle for next release, so I would like to give everyone a chance to voice their concerns / alternate suggestions and put this to a vote.
> 
> +1