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

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Just to throw another perspective in here....I DO think the fact that
Evergreen is still on version 2.x matters.  I might not use the word
stagnating, but it creates the impression of large ship slowly making its
way when in fact, I know some of the changes have been huge.  Giving the
version numbers meaning has got to help everyone so either tying them to
other underlying changes (e.g. new version of PostgreSQL being required)
makes sense. But attaching to the year also makes sense so I (as an outside
observer who tries to help people understand what's going on here) would
support that!

I do have a concern about your talk of eliminating tarballs in favor of
Git.  While I always urge people to use Git if they can, there are plenty
of smaller installations for whom a Git server requirement would put
Evergreen out of reach.  I guess these people would be obligated to use a
service provider as their hosting agency.  Or am I missing something?

Lori


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jason Stephenson <jstephenson at mvlc.org>wrote:

> Quoting "Sharp, Chris" <csharp at georgialibraries.org>:
>
>  As long as the tagged git version and the tarball match, I have no
>> problem with suggesting either, but I think tarballs are standard and
>> expected in F/LOSS projects.
>>
>
> They are becoming less so as more projects switch to git or some other
> distributed version control system. Mplayer2 is one project that has
> abandoned tarballs and versioned releases completely.
>
> There is another place where versioned releases are tarballs help. That is
> with packaging software for distribution with certain GNU/Linux flavors.
> Most of their binary packaging systems depend on certain versioning styles
> to determine when to upgrade an installed package. Currently, this is not
> an issue for Evergreen, since the only way to install it at present is to
> compile it from source code. However, several in the community have
> ambitions of creating binary packages for Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora that
> users can just install and hopefully everything just works. Not having
> tarballs and versions will make their work slightly more difficult.
>
> If we're voting again on version schemes, I would vote for the
> Ubuntu-style YY.MM type. After all, when you run from the master branch
> in git, the date you build it is more or less your version.
>
>
> --
> Jason Stephenson
> Assistant Director for Technology Services
> Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
> Chief Bug Wrangler, Evergreen ILS
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20130104/849c457b/attachment.htm>