ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com>
Subject Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:11:37 GMT
Actually, the delay was to give time for several refactorings to be 
backported from the trunk to the release branch.

A release branch can be created at any time by any committer, so the 
timing has nothing to do with the number of available committers.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 8/6/2014 8:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Ron,
>
> In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of numbering
> OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release was cut. But as
> the number of active committers is decreasing the time to release a cut
> takes more time. Last year broke with that policy, resulting in a release
> been cut with number 13.07.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
>>
>> Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
>>
>>
>> The description of the Release number says that release numbers consist of
>> 2 parts
>>
>>     "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
>>     Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
>> but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description missing.
>>
>> The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
>> It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01 should
>> already be able to be downloaded.
>> It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in 2014 which
>> means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
>>
>> I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release identification was
>> adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
>> It leads to the impression that the project is not active since it missed
>> 2013 altogether.
>>
>> Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern of
>> releases where the first digit indicates major change with some risk of
>> serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating significant new
>> functionality but no change to the existing data structure or functions
>> that are not changing and the last digits indicating a minor bug fix?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message