At 12:15 AM 4/7/2013 +0200, Paul Poulain wrote:
[snip]
The poll would have the following options :
* keep 3. "forever"
* keep the 3. until a major functional change is made, like
introducing
a new search engine. The numbering change is decided by the Release
Manager.
* drop the 3. and use 14.0, 14.1, 14.2, 16.0, 16.1,...
* adopt a numbering style with YYYY-MM (2013-11, 2014-05,
2014-11,...)
QUESTION TO THIS LIST, before the poll: for the YYY-MM style, how to
number the maintaince releases ?
[Based on Ubuntu, clearly announced ahead of time, predictable for
planning
purposes in the long term] the year/months are on a six month cycle
April/October: 12.04(LTS), 12.10, 13.04, 13.10, 14.04(LTS), 14.10 ...
etc.
[And for anyone wanting to be at the cutting edge there are beta and
alphas
leading up to the releases.]
There are occasional "maintenance" releases in between, at least for
the
LTS releases -- e.g. at the moment, a year after 12.04 there is a
12.04.2(LTS) -- just a simple "dot digit" on the end, like Koha. But
it's
12.04 plus security patches only (for the server edition) with no
"enhancements."
How many libraries using Koha really look at "new releases" every month
or
so? We are based on 3.8.5 which was state of the art when I put it into
production six months ago. Koha is up to what? 3.8.11 plus 3.10.4 plus
3.12
beta plus 3.14 in the offing. And my system isn't even a "current
stable
release" any more ...
Maybe the *numbering* of releases is less important than the *number*
of
releases? Would more time for testing and Q.A. lead to a more stable
platform, say on a six monthly basis? Would it tempt more libraries to
examine enhancements? ... and please, these are just questions,
certainly
not criticism.