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Subject Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.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 14:16:13 GMT
On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first release of
the 13 series.
> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
>
>> "<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."
> Exactly,
>
> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and so on.
> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is "13.07" and not,
as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our major release number is in the format: YY.MM
> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number (as I mentioned
a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now may add further confusion.
I get it now.
That is a very non-standard way to version things.

Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this 
clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning.
Possible change:
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release 
Number>.<Minor Release Number> where:"
could be changed to:
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release 
Number>.<Minor Release Number>  for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual 
is coming and needs to be read carefully.

"a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April 
(09.04, 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not 
true for the current active release "13.07"

Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by 
eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage 
within Apache that is different.
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze 
Date>.<Release Number>  for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
<Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are 
the year and month of the date of the feature freeze;
<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 
Release Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest 
Release Freeze Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for 
the Release Freeze Date you are using.

The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern 
to the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient.


This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not 
released.
"Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series:
June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01
August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02
March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03
September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04
April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)"

I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time 
to fix these as well.



>
> Jacopo
>
>
>


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


Mime
View raw message