openerp-expert-framework team mailing list archive

[Olivier Dony <odo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Le 01/10/2011 13:35, Antony Lesuisse a écrit :
>> About version numbering what about switching to this:
>>
>> 6.0 -> 6 LTS
>> 6.1 -> 7
>> 6.2 -> 8
>> 7.0 -> 9 LTS

+1

All these releases were supposed to be Major releases in all aspects
(just not LTS), so they should be numbered appropriately.


>> with stable releases:
>>
>> 6.0.1 -> 6.1 LTS
>> 6.0.2 -> 6.2 LTS
>> 6.1.1 -> 7.1
>> 6.1.2 -> 7.2

-1

We should stick with "6.0.1" "6.0.2" for stable patch releases, even if
we never increment the minor version number for now. It doesn't hurt and
is more intuitive and consistent.

If we do this we have the best of both worlds, and all our version
numbers will be correct and intuitive regarding what users expect.
As Christophe said, X.Y.Z release numbers are standard and understood
implicitly by most people, including non-technical ones.

"6.2" for a release number raises the question as to what kind of
migration procedure will be needed. "6.0.2" does not, and people are
used to it.


>> pro:
>>
>> It's fashionable these days (firefox, chrome, windows) actually less(1) is using
>> this kind version numbering since 1983.

What happens I think is that there is no "minor" releases anymore,
perhaps because modern software is more agile and adds features more
quickly. Nevertheless there is a reserved scheme for "minor" releases,
should we ever need them.

Latest firefox release? 7.0.1
Latest chrome release? 14.0.835.187
See a pattern in the minor version number?