ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release page outdated and inconsistent.
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:10:45 GMT
Ron,

I can understand that when talking about organisation specific support
groups, and there are a few. But apart from these and the open groups, it
seems to me that these closed groups were created to explore how far the
OFBiz community extends in order to execute some marketing scheme (by its
creator).

We can only guess about the intentions.

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 9:00 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message