[OPEN-ILS-DEV] [RM] Call for roadmap entries for Evergreen 3.0

[Kathy Lussier]

Hi all,

As much as I try to avoid getting involved in release numbering 
discussions, I will say I agree with Chris, Jason, and Jim.

I think the community should make a big PR splash when the full client 
is ready for production use, and the PR splash will be more meaningful 
with a big version jump at the same time.

There have been a few moments in the 2.x series when we could have 
jumped to 3.0, particularly when template toolkit was ready for 
production. We've waited this long to make the jump, I think we can wait 
a little longer until the web client is fully ready.

Having said that, I'm not going to beat a dead horse if the ultimate 
decision is to go to 3.0

Kathy


On 11/09/2015 01:52 PM, James Keenan wrote:
> I agree with Chris and Jason. I also think, as Galen mentioned, 2.10 is an alright version number.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Keenan
> Library Applications Supervisor
> jkeenan at cwmars.org
> 508-755-3323 x23
>   
> C/W MARS
> 67 Millbrook St., Suite 201
> Worcester, MA 01606
>
>    Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.
> Currently reading Swansong 1945  by Walter Kempowski.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Jason Stephenson
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:43 AM
> To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] [RM] Call for roadmap entries for Evergreen 3.0
>
> Quoting Chris Sharp <csharp at georgialibraries.org>:
>
>> I think the criterion for a "3.0" release is pretty straightforward.
>>   If the web client will be fully usable in all major functionality
>> (Circulation, Cataloging, Administration, Acquisitions), with multiple
>> printer options and standalone in place and easily installable by a
>> reasonably experienced Windows administrator, we should call it 3.0
>> and have a big splash news release about it.  If not, I think we
>> should go with 2.10.
>>
>> I agree that beating the dead horse of release numbering in general is
>> not productive, but as with 2.0 several years ago, 3.0 should mean
>> more than "that number was next".
> I just want to say that for the most part, I agree with Chris. I'm not married to version numbers, but I've long thought 3.0 should be reserved for when the browser staff client is recommended over the XUL client.
>
>
> --
> Jason Stephenson
> Assistant Director for Technology Services Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
> 4 High ST, Suite 175
> North Andover, MA 01845
> Phone: 978-557-5891
> Email: jstephenson at mvlc.org
>
>

-- 
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
klussier at masslnc.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier