Hello, There are 2 questions in this mail: === DB update numbering === The bug 7167 will probably pushed in a few days, and it's a new way to handle updatedatabase. They will be non-linear, meaning update 1 can be applied after update 2, and before update 3. The previous numbering pattern, made from 4 parts (3.06.00.001 for example) was made to handle release version + DB version. The 1st update for version 3.8.3 would be called 3.08.03.001 for example. With the new scheme, there's no need to have a so complex numbering system. We could just number our databases update 1, 2, 3, ... What do you think of this idea ? Why should we keep the previous numbering scheme ? Any other suggestion ? === Koha version numbering === This second topic is a harder one. So please, don't jump on this and forget the 1st one. I was wondering why/if we should continue with our 3.6 / 3.8 / 4.0 / ... numbering. This question arise because some of our libraries have problem understanding what will be the next version number. It will be 3.8. And the next one ? 3.10 or 4.0, depending on Solr or any other major change being applied. And maybe, in april, Solr will be pushed, in this case it would be called 4.0 (I don't think it will, but it's just for the example) That's quite unclear for external people. That's why I was wondering : why not use another, totally new numbering schema. The "koha april 2012" could be called 2012.A, or 12.A, or 12.1. The "Koha October 2012" could be called 2012.B, or 12.B, or 12.2 (or any other scheme, I'm open to any proposal, including not changing, I just want to share the idea. - we should just avoid Ubuntu numbering patter: 12.4 / 12.10 would be a bad idea, as Ubuntu is released in april and october, like Koha. So it may be confusing -) What we need is a number for each monthly maintainance release. But for the rest, what about changing everything in our numbering method ? There's also another interest with this idea: if we change completly our numbering, we would not seem to be "late" against another software that is currently numbered 4.8 (i've been in Greece recently, for a talk in academic libraries. I saw that there is a big confusion here, and changing the numbering would also help I think). Let's start the discussion, but please, on both topics, that are related but different: we could change #1 and not #2 ! -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08