IMO the current convention is fine. The thing to keep in mind is that the
year.month is for the release branch, ie when it branched from the trunk and
IMO it should always stay that way. Having sub-versions over time for bug-fix
binary releases should work just fine with another dot and a number
representing the sequence index.
Still, I'm also of the opinion that we should not have more than one release
branch per year, and that the month could be eliminated. I know there are many
who would like to see more frequent release branches, so just in case that
happens it might as well stay as is for now.
-David
On Aug 1, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> I wonder if before we do a formal release we shouldn't perhaps take another
>> look at our release naming convention of {year}.{month}?
>>
>> Do people find it useful? Does it cause any confusion?
>
> I don't like it too, even if I too don't feel strongly about it. If there is
> a general consensus we could return to a more traditional naming
> convention... but at this point what I really would like to avoid is a huge
> brainstorming thread that will delay forever our releases. If the consensus
> will be difficult to reach, I would suggest to keep the conversation going
> and in the meantime continue with our current (and new) release strategy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>>
>> To be honest I don't really like it and would prefer to just have OFBiz 10,
>> OFBiz 11, etc. I don't feel strongly about it but thought it might be worth
>> raising before we continue.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 27/07/2010, at 6:55 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> Let me know when you want me to start the process and I will initiate it
>>> (by creating a tag, preparing the signed package in my home folder,
>>> initiating a vote for the release).
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Adrian.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Ruppert
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cool. Thanks Scott and Adam! All of the backports I had in mind have been
>>>>> committed.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Adam Heath <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Adam Heath <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Create Release from 10.04 release branch
>>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>>> Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:46 PM
>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> I still need to backport some fixes to the branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to remove the conversion framework from
>>>>>> the entity engine - for the same reason I did it in the
>>>>>> trunk. I would just remove the conversion code in the branch
>>>>>> and I would not include the new JdbcValueHandler code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus, I would like to add the expanded entity engine
>>>>>> tests - if there are no objections. I know that isn't a bug
>>>>>> fix, but it could help users of the release find
>>>>>> compatibility problems with various databases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding any new test cases that themselves don't add any new
>>>>>> code would
>>>>>> be perfectly fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
