On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> writes: > >> For developers it probably sounds good... but for business managers >> being sold on it, it does not make as much sense. They like boring >> things numbered versions and such. The higher the sell the more they >> want a nice solid IBM like number. > > I think Luke's point (which I agree with) is that it should get a version > number when it's released, chosen based on how much stuff made it into the > release. In other words, if the changes and stability feel 1.0-ish, it > should be 1.0, but if it turns out that when it's released it's not > 1.0-ish-feeling, it should be released as 0.26. But the idea is to make > that decision very late in the release process rather than early so that > people aren't talking about "this will be in 0.26" or "that will be in > 1.0" and then have to have their expectations reset. > > The Debian project did something very similar for years, although at this > point has switched to a model of simply incrementing the major release > version for every new full release.
The issue I have run into is that when management is planning to roll out/buy a new product they are happier with numbers than "well currently we are working on Fuzzy Doggie. It may become 1.0 next year." It causes them all kinds of anxiety :/. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
