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

James Fournie james.fournie at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 11:54:58 EST 2013

Just thought I'd throw this out there

Here's an interesting proposal that I encountered last week called Semantic
Versioning, which isn't super different from what is being done now.

The only challenge with this is defining a public API -- while we have the
various OpenSRF API calls, there are so many other moving parts to
Evergreen that it's difficult to define a single API.  I like the general
concept of basing version numbers on dependencies, it would be great if we
could tie major version numbers to depenencies on
xulrunner/opensrf/postgres/etc, just would have to nail those down.  For
example I think that perhaps 2.3 which introduced the xulrunner update
would have been 3.0, but now I'd say when Dojo is updated could be 3.0.


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich <
alexey.lazar at mnsu.edu> wrote:

> On 2013-01-04, at 09:07 , Bill Erickson <berick at esilibrary.com> wrote:
> > As soon as we moved to time based releases, it seems like everyone,
> including myself, starting referring to the releases by their release
> date..  e.g. the "2013 Fall Release".  I was mildly against it at first,
> but including the date in the name in some form frankly seems inevitable.
>  It's just easier to remember.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > As an example, the next release would be the 13.03.0 release.
> +1
> Aleksey Lazar
> IS Developer and Intergrator
> 507-389-2907
> http://www.pals.org/
> alexey.lazar at mnsu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20130104/875c5cbd/attachment.htm>

More information about the Open-ils-general mailing list