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

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bill Erickson <berick at esilibrary.com> wrote:

> If we decide to change, I would also vote for the Ubuntu-style naming
> scheme Thomas describes.  (IIRC, Jason S. was also a proponent of this
> scheme).


All that I ask of a version number that it increase monotonically, not be
unreasonably long, and that if there are any semantics attached to the
version numbering scheme that set expectations for ease of upgrades [1],
that they be adhered to.

I have no objection to switching to an Ubuntu-style scheme (so if we're
voting, consider this a 0), though I would also point out that doing so
means that we would lose the ability to increment the version number
significantly to signal a truly major new release.  For example, without
reading the release notes, there would be nothing to indicate whether (say)
Evergreen 13.10 adds just a few nice features over 13.04 or if it adds two
new major functional modules.

That said, I don't think that version numbers are of that much consequence
in marketing Evergreen -- the advent of major new features  (serials!
acquisitions! robotic book returners!) matters rather more to library staff
who are anticipating an upgrade.

[1] For example, the PostgreSQL project's policy at
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ specifies that minor release
upgrades will never require a dump/restore of the database.

Regards,

Galen
-- 

Galen Charlton
Manager of Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20130104/ff4d5543/attachment-0001.htm>