[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposal to change Evergreen versioning scheme

[Justin Hopkins]

Why are we so focused on the numbering scheme? I don't think the time
spent worrying about what number we are on does anything to improve
the project.

I suspect this is coming up because of bericks recent post about
release scheduling - which I (personally) do think would improve the
project.

Regards,
Justin Hopkins
Manager, Information Technology
MOBIUS Consortium Office
c: 573-808-2309

--sent from a mobile device--

On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:35 PM, "Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich"
<alexey.lazar at mnsu.edu> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I would like to propose a change to the official Evergreen versioning scheme. Rather than then the current scheme that attempts to tie version numbers to various code changes, I propose that we switch to a more simple and predictable calendar-related scheme that better aligns with the new release schedule.
>
> Issues with the current versioning scheme:
> * The current scheme is code-centric, complicated and not generally useful: http://www.open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=versioning
> * More importantly, the current scheme is not being followed as described
> * The current scheme creates a perception that Evergreen is stagnating - version 2 since 2010
> * Under the current scheme Evergreen will reach version 3 in 2016(!)
>
> I am proposing a scheme that would tie major version numbers to the last digit of the current calendar year. Under the new scheme, the next major release version would be 3, which I will use for examples below.
>
> Option 1:
> * The first major release of the year would be 3.0, the second major release would be 3.1.
> * Minor releases: 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so on
>
> Option 2:
> * The first major release of the year would be 3.1, the second major release would be 3.2.
> * Minor releases: 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and so on
>
> Option 3:
> * The first major release of the year would be 3.4, the second major release would be 3.9
> * Minor releases: 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.9.1, 3.9.2 and so on
>
> So, just wanted to throw this out there, again [1], to see what people think.
>
> My proposal is based on this post by Bill Erickson and the discussion that followed:
> 1. http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/2012-May/008203.html
>
> P.S. Should this scheme be adopted, the next version is an excellent opportunity to switch to it smoothly. However, I would like to suggest that it is time to jump to version 3 regardless of whether the versioning scheme is changed officially.
>
> Aleksey Lazar
> PALS
> IS Developer and Intergrator
> 507-389-2907
> http://www.pals.org/
> alexey.lazar at mnsu.edu
>
>
>