[Koha-devel] Koha numbering

[David Cook]

I agree with Marcel and Owen. I don't think it's a good idea to jump from
version 3.x to 14.x, and I think version numbering is an important
discussion topic, since it affects how Koha is perceived by current and
future users. 

Having worked in libraries for the past 6-7 years as library staff and not a
developer, I can state with a high level of confidence that consistency
almost always matters more in libraries than software conventions; it is
logically consistent that version 3 be followed by 4. Like Owen said, if
that varies, there are going to be questions. While we might debate the
merits of different version numbering systems, I don't think we're going to
be the ones answering these questions in most cases. They're going to be
aimed at trainers, salespeople, and technical staff who might not be
developers. With the exception of Nicole, the majority of these people might
throw up their hands and say, "I have no idea why it went from 3 to 14. It's
weird." In many cases, no questions might be asked. In either case, people
might just make negative judgements about the reliability, predictability,
and transparency of Koha, especially if the "reason" for changing version
numbering systems isn't made explicitly and readily available.

Personally, I think it would make Koha look bad. The more often a Koha
front-person says "I don't know" or "that's weird", the worse that person
looks and the worse Koha looks. 

I think the growing consensus of software users, interface designers, and
sellers is "don't make me think". It should be intuitive. 

That said, maybe I'm projecting a bit of my own biases. Maybe there would be
some confused conversation about why Koha went from 3 to 14, but after the
majority started using 14 and upgrading from there, it might not be an
issue, because that idea of consistency would be regained. 

As for whether or not users and libraries even look at version numbers...I
imagine that the vast majority of people interacting directly with Koha
never notice them. They don't appear in the OPAC and in the staff client
it's tucked away in the system preferences and About page. 

The ones caring are likely to be the ones who manage Koha in-house or the
people who liaise with support companies. In these cases, maybe it would be
easy enough to say, "Oh, the community just decided to change how it
numbered each version", but I think this discussion will quickly be lost to
time and the average Koha user/developer will have no idea why it changed
and as Owen said...I imagine people might wonder if/what they're missing by
going from 3.x to 14.x.

For me, I think the most logical end to this discussion is to decide on a
goal/trigger to switch to 4.x, and to just continue 3.x until that
goal/trigger is reached.


David Cook
Systems Librarian
Prosentient Systems P/L
ABN 31 078 409 168
72/330 Wattle St, 
Ultimo NSW 2007
tel: 02 92120899
fax: 02 92120885
dcook at prosentient.com.au

-----Original Message-----

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:10:30 +0000
From: Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy at rijksmuseum.nl>
To: "koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org"
	<koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org>
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
Message-ID:
	
<809BE39CD64BFD4EB9036172EBCCFA310E20641A at S-MAIL-1B.rijksmuseum.intra>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Cool discussion :)
Here is my thought: If there is no big reason to jump to the next higher
number (in this case 3->4) in some period, do it at least every so-much
years. That is reason enough..
But please do not jump from 3 to 14 !

Marcel
------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:45:25 -0400
From: Owen Leonard <oleonard at myacpl.org>
To: "koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org"
	<koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org>
Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
Message-ID:
	<CAO4qe2O9eCbyG8RhMaku7ZiKCJVq7u3qijCKO4_N7oU7=aQwfg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have, and I'm actually in no
hurry (yet) to cut it off. I think there are still aspects which need to be
considered.

Version numbering is important to different groups for different reasons.
For developers, we need version numbering to keep track of where we are in
the release cycle and to help us make judgements about how to manage and
maintain previous releases. For users the version number gives them an
indication about how important it is to upgrade.

> But please do not jump from 3 to 14 !

When considering users, I think this is an important consideration.
Jumping from 3 to 14 would be really confusing to users, and create
expectations about what that version number means. Did we jump 11 version
numbers because 3.14 is 11 version numbers better than 3.12?
Did we jump 11 version numbers because a pseudo-Koha project has practiced
version number inflation? No matter how well we communicate our reasons for
switching numbering systems these questions are going to come up. Are we
okay with that?

I agree with those who worry that incrementing full version numbers like we
did point releases before is going to make it more difficult for users to
know how important it is to upgrade. As developers we know how much work
goes into making 3.10 into 3.12, but users have to weigh a lot of factors
when deciding whether and when to upgrade.
Self-supporting libraries in particular may not have the resources to
upgrade for every version. Will a new numbering scheme make this more
difficult for them?

All that said, I think it is problematic that we don't have a plan, under
the current numbering scheme, to move from 3.x to 4.x.

Just to muddy the waters more: What if we came up with a goal (or
goals) to set to trigger the flip from 3 to 4, and then implemented the new
version scheme from there? That would give the users the satisfaction of
seeing a version jump, and give us some lead time to "sell" the new
numbering scheme.

With apologies to those who want this to be over,

  -- Owen

--
Web Developer
Athens County Public Libraries
http://www.myacpl.org