On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 20:52, Dave Johnson wrote:
Did we really mean to completely forbid any database changes at all
in minor releases? If so, comment moderation is going to have to wait
for 3.0.
yes, that was my intention, but that is partly predicated on the
belief that we want to stick to fairly regular releases. i like
developing very incrementally, which means smaller and more focused
features, and more frequent releases. if we do this then i don't
think we need to allow for db scripts on every release, only every 2-3
releases.
i also like the convention of only applying upgrade scripts on major
releases. that way a user always knows that if it's an X.0.0 release
then there is db script that needs to be run. it also saves us some
work because the upgrade guides for minor releases can be small or
non-existent.
I think the problem is that most the features requested for Roller
require some form of schema change, so we'll either be deferring lots
of features, like comment moderation (hi Linda!), or bumping up the
major rev number a lot. So, we'll have Roller v26.3 in no time. Not a
major issue, I guess, but I think we need to tweak something. For
example, what if we did "Major.Minor.Patch" numbering and banned all
database changes from patch releases instead?
- Dave
