On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:18, Dave Johnson wrote: > 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?
well, it seems like this discussion has come full circle back to our last discussion on development cycle and release conventions. my feeling is that patch releases are useless when you have a reasonably short development cycle. it makes sense for products to have patch releases when they only plan to releases once a year, but if we are releasing once every month or two then why do we need patch releases? v26.3 in no time would require us to be especially short sited. personally, i don't think it's that hard to lump together the database changes so that we only have to do them once every 2-3 months. look at how much trouble we've had with the Roller 2.0 db scripts. the code base has been pretty much set for weeks now, but the db scripts are still not complete. i prefer not to go through all of that for every release. obviously it's not my intention to force people to put off the features they want to develop, but i am also not convinced that we need to be making db changes all the time. if you think we really need db changes that frequently then go for it. -- Allen
