+1 About the release naming, jerome proposed cocktail names, and this is quite a good idea, if we are sure to give this image About that i am 0- The idea i like is to associate exotic name to the quite "cold" name of XWiki
If we vote for cocktail name, i like ludo's proposal to have alcool / cocktail name Exemple : XWiki Rhum release 1 : Mojito See here, we might suffer a lack of credibility with this naming but we can live with it (of course if we do not get all alchoolics) On 1 nov. 2010, at 18:05, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been thinking a little more about the XE 3.0 idea and I came to the > conclusion that there should be no XWiki version called 3.0. > > Here is my thinking. I agree with something that was discussed by multiple > people which is that a potential main version switch is the sign of a > progress and of a cycle of development (preferably of a coherent feature set > that we have thought about). > The probleme is that if you call this version 3.0 then people will think of > what software usually is developped (in the proprietary world), where 3.0 is > a start with major changes in the software. > > Now when we look at the way open source and XWiki in particular develop > software, this is not at all the case. We make gradual changes in the whole > cycle of the software and there is not that many more changes between 1.9 and > 2.0 then there was betwee 1.6 and 1.7. In this life we introduce new features > all the time. Usually the first time a features goes in, it's not perfect and > it's improved in the next release (with the biggest bugs fixed in minor > releases). > > In order to recognize that and make it more understandable I suggest we don't > call ANYTHING a .0 release. Instead I suggest that we start calling things > the way they are, which are releases of a cycle which are improvements on a > path that has been explained. > Therefore we should NAME the major releases (instead of numbering them, > although we keep the number for tracking) and we number the sub releases > starting with 1 and not 0. > > For example if we call the 2.x cycle XXXXX and the 3.x cycle YYYYY, then we > release > > XWiki 2.1 -> Cycle XXXXX release 1 -> subname for that release > XWiki 2.2 -> Cycle XXXXX release 2 -> subname for that release > XWiki 2.3 -> Cycle XXXXX release 3 -> subname for that release > XWiki 2.4 -> Cycle XXXXX release 4 -> subname for that release > > For each release we show with features are in beta/stable state. Then at some > point we work on full stabilitization and we advertise > > XWiki XXXXX release 7 with all features in there being stable > > Then we start the next cycle with release 1 > > XWiki YYYYY release 1 > etc.. > > And we show the path and objectives of the whole cycle in order to show some > coherency. > > This way we avoid the .0 issues where it's not clear if a .0 is stable or > not, the beginning or the end. > > -- > > Concerning the plan, I'm +1 for stabilitzation work. -0 for calling the > result 3.0. > +1 for calling the next release following 2.7, version 3.1 but having new > features in them showing the path of the next development cycle. > and +1 for finding a text naming instead of numbers > > For the next cycle (3) we would need to find a nice name that shows the path > we want to follow. > > Ludovic > >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Gregory GUENEAU wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I am +1 to make stabilization work, on a couple of releases >>> I am +1 to have soon a 3.0 release >>> And i am +1 on the content vincent propose >>> >>> But my point of view is -1 stepping the release family number because the >>> main purpose of what is discussed here is stabilization, and not showing >>> the path of 3.x family. >>> >>> Therefore : >>> - do we consider a january 2011 release to be stable enough ? >> Speaking for myself of course... >> >> yes (otherwise I wouldn't have proposed it obviously). >> >>> - stabilization work wouldn'it be leading then to the last 2.x version >>> instead of the first 3.x family version ? >> no, it's the same. >> >>> - is there behind it a consensus on what we will concentrate our effort in >>> 3.x versions ? I mean thematics we can talk about. >> not needed to decide on the 3.0 release, this is a topic for another mail. >> >>> - therefore, are we in a situation where we can vote on the global >>> thematics we will develop in 3.x releases ? >> not needed at this stage >> >>> - do we have a clear consensus short list of features that show the path of >>> 3.x family ? >> not needed at this stage >> >>> - in consequence of that, is the release content here send a clear message >>> to uneducated publics about what is in this future 3.x versions ? >> not needed at this stage >> >>> - do educated people care this much about release number, that we >>> absolutely have to release a 3.0 with the content presented below ? >> yes (the content is open of course but provided it's not important new stuff >> IMO since otherwise it won't be about stabilization). >> >>> We have to make 100% sure our message will be understood by market. We are >>> now in the Gartner magic quadrant and will increase our visibility outside >>> the opensource community. >>> In a world where new release number families means : "we show the path of >>> the future of this software, even if the features we present are not >>> perfect", i will strongly promote to answer in details the questions i >>> mentionned before deciding 2.8 to be in fact 3.0. >>> >>> Then here is the two elements that are probably the biggest things in the >>> roadmap for 3.x versions : >>> - going social (workspaces in xem, twitter like app, page stats for the >>> user, etc.) >>> - going to be an easy place to develop in (extension manager of course, but >>> also documentation for dummies and a first app like "app within minute" >>> proposed by guillaume and strongly needed by our front team) >>> >>> Is there a consensus on this list ? Then what should be the "demo" features >>> we could present to be consistent for a 3.0 release ? >> Again this is not the topic of this mail. You're talking about deciding >> what's in for 4.0 when this mail is about deciding the 3.0 release. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 nov. 2010, at 09:23, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Sergiu started mentioning the idea of a XE 3.0 when we defined the XE 2.6 >>>> roadmap. We need a more general agreement that we want a XE 3.0 and how to >>>> reach it. >>>> >>>> As Sergiu I believe we need a XE 3.0 ASAP for the following reasons: >>>> >>>> - it's been a bit more than 1 year since the XE 2.0 release and I feel >>>> it's good to have one major release every year >>>> - we've added **lots** of features since XE 2.0. Check >>>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReleaseNotes to get a feeling >>>> - it's good for open source marketing >>>> >>>> Before being able to release XE 3.0 I think: >>>> >>>> - XE 2.6 is already planned for the 18th of November (with "mail this >>>> page" and "recent activity" features + icon/emoticon and wikiword support >>>> that was sneaked in surreptitiously) >>>> - We should have a XE 2.7 release (1 month duration, ie leading us to the >>>> 18th of December) to finish started stuff: >>>> -- Finish the Gadget integration since it's been started already and it's >>>> important. That said I'd actually be ok to not finish it if we think it's >>>> too much to release XE 3.0 quickly according to the dates below. Anca to >>>> tell us if it's possible in the timeframe. >>>> -- First working extension manager that can be used to install XARs >>>> (replaces the old Packager on the back end side). Thomas to tell us if >>>> it's possible in the timeframe. >>>> -- Recent Activity with apps sending events (XE 2.6 will already have a >>>> good part of it) >>>> -- UI finishing touches >>>> -- Some additional Security and Performance improvements if possible >>>> -- etc (add what you'd like to see absolutely here - it should be work >>>> already started as much as possible and no new stuff) >>>> - Release XE 3.0 one month after the XE 2.7 release, ie around 18th of >>>> January - ie end of January 2011) >>>> >>>> Very important: XE 3.0 should be a maturation/conclusion release, i.e. >>>> concluding all the work started in the 2.x series (same as what we did for >>>> XE 2.0). It shouldn't be seen as revolutionary stuff that we should add >>>> from now on since it'll take a year more before those can be fully >>>> stabilized and we would loose the window of opportunity of doing a major >>>> release now. >>>> >>>> Note: We shouldn't try to cram too much things in since that'll extend the >>>> lead time to release XE 3.0 and we'll loose the stabilization effect. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > > -- > Ludovic Dubost > Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ > XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com > Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost > > <ludovic.vcf> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
