Just another 0.01€ in the same direction: most "developing" users (esp. the ones developing cocoon itself) would qualify as hackers. Those are used to associate special meanings with groups of version numbers as a number of other projects follow similar rules (e.g. Linux for long used that even/odd numbering scheme).
However, as Cocoon will (and should) attract non hacker users, on a first view, what will indicate to them, that version 3.1.2 is not "superior" to 3.0.9? (superior aka later or more mature) While I personally am quite fine with any versioning scheme, I do think, it is absolutely necessary to have a policy document explaining it to accidental users. And this nearly at the same time they will detect something like cocoon does exist at all. Rainer Sylvain Wallez schrieb: > 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 >
