cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Pruy <Rainer.P...@Acrys.COM>
Subject Re: Renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 and infrastructure
Date Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:43:29 GMT
Just another 0.01€ in the same direction:

most "developing" users (esp. the ones developing cocoon itself) would qualify as hackers.
Those are used to associate special meanings with groups of version numbers
as a number of other projects follow similar rules (e.g. Linux for long used that even/odd
numbering scheme).

However, as Cocoon will (and should) attract non hacker users,
on a first view, what will indicate to them, that version 3.1.2 is not "superior" to 3.0.9?
(superior aka later or more mature)

While I personally am quite fine with any versioning scheme,
I do think, it is absolutely necessary to have a policy document explaining it
to accidental users. And this nearly at the same time they will detect something like cocoon
does exist at all.

Rainer

Sylvain Wallez schrieb:
> Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> 
>> Versioning
>> -------------------------------
>> For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
>> development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
>>
>> I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
>> Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x releases are marked as development versions and we
>> clearly explain this on the website and the READMEs of all artifacts.
>>
>> When we believe that the community and the technology are stable, we do
>> a 3.1.0 release.
>>
>> I think this is less confusing than appending alpha, beta or milestone
>> postfixes.
>>   
> 
> I would say the contrary. Let's not forget that most of our users aren't
> hard-core developers (they love Cocoon because they can do complex stuff
> without programming) and they aren't used to this odd/even versioning
> scheme that comes from the Linux kernel.
> 
> Rather than that, it seems to me that most of the "normal" (i.e. non
> hard-core hacker) people consider a version without any "beta",
> "milestone" or other suffix as an official stable release. A well-known
> example is Firefox that goes through a series of milestones, beta and RC
> version before releasing a stable version with the same number. Eclipse
> does the same.
> 
> Also, I haven't voted for the renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 as I was on
> vacation, but I really think this is too early. Cocoon 2.2 is just out
> and we announce a 3.0. This will most probably lead people to consider
> 2.2 as a transition to 3.0 and just not use it, and thus just look
> elsewhere. Stated clearly, I have fears that just as Maven almost killed
> the developer community for 2.2, announcing a 3.0 now will kill the user
> community.
> 
> My 0.02 euros.
> 
> Sylvain
> 


Mime
View raw message