Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
-------------------------------
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x releases are marked as development versions and we
clearly explain this on the website and the READMEs of all artifacts.
When we believe that the community and the technology are stable, we do
a 3.1.0 release.
I think this is less confusing than appending alpha, beta or milestone
postfixes.
I would say the contrary. Let's not forget that most of our users aren't
hard-core developers (they love Cocoon because they can do complex stuff
without programming) and they aren't used to this odd/even versioning
scheme that comes from the Linux kernel.
Rather than that, it seems to me that most of the "normal" (i.e. non
hard-core hacker) people consider a version without any "beta",
"milestone" or other suffix as an official stable release. A well-known
example is Firefox that goes through a series of milestones, beta and RC
version before releasing a stable version with the same number. Eclipse
does the same.
Also, I haven't voted for the renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 as I was on
vacation, but I really think this is too early. Cocoon 2.2 is just out
and we announce a 3.0. This will most probably lead people to consider
2.2 as a transition to 3.0 and just not use it, and thus just look
elsewhere. Stated clearly, I have fears that just as Maven almost killed
the developer community for 2.2, announcing a 3.0 now will kill the user
community.
My 0.02 euros.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
