On 11/9/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
+1 I think it's somewhat shortsighted to require version bumbs just for schema changes. > > - Dave > >
