Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart: > 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@googlemail.com>: >> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want >> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call >> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other >> problems. Is a Struts 2 book good for learning Struts 3 (yes, not >> comparable to Struts 1 vs. Struts 2). What do people find at Google? >> Will they search for Struts 3, Struts 2 or both to find useful >> information (a lot of information for Struts 2 will still apply for 3). >> Do we need new Logos? And there is even more if you dig deeper, I guess. > Struts 3 version 1.0.0.1 ;-) No, actually Struts 3 3.0.1.1 :)
As I already said, I believe that if we counted right, we had already 3.1.x, upcoming would be 4.0.x - but starting from major three, we should IMO stay with consistent versioning following the said scheme. > Maybe just keep the brand Struts and distinct them base on version > number ? This follow the MAJOR.MINOR.... schema. Basically I'm with you on that. Most likely though, after releasing a Struts 3.0.0, people will coin the short term "Struts 3" within days. Also the problems mentioned in my last mail still remain - we once searched a way to distinct two different frameworks, namely Struts 1 vs. Struts 2. Struts 3.x will be in the Struts 2 framework line, and we will have to make this clear to users. Buying a Struts 1 book is no good for 3.x, Struts 2 is. Googling for Struts is bad, googling for Struts 2 is not. Is the "Struts power 2" logo retired and will it be replaced by just the good old Struts logo (also applies to the WebWork+Struts=Strusts 2 icon)? And so on... - we should try to think about all this beforehand and be very clear and well decided about our communication and branding. - René --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
