ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
Subject Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:26:41 GMT
On 07/08/2014 12:44 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On 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?
> I guess you meant 11.04.05... it should be released in a few days (the voting thread
is going on right now in the dev list).
> Approx at the same time we will also release 12.04.04.


>
>>
>> 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 description of the patch number is missing. The description says 
that 12..04 is the way that a release is named. It does not allow 12.04.04.
> Major Release Number: 13.07 or 12.04 or 11.04 (they mean July 2013/ April 2012/ April
2011 i.e. the dates the release branch was created i.e. from that time one only bug fixes
are backported from trunk)

That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first 
release of the 13 series.
"<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if 
specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second 
etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the 
release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents the 
latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."


> Jacopo
>
>> 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
>>
>


-- 
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102


Mime
View raw message