On 07/08/2014 9:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 07/08/2014 14:19, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
On 06/08/2014 5:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
My only concern about the versioning pattern is that it looks to be
non-standard and does not follow the practice of other Apache products.
Yes I know, I'm the one who pushed for this versioning pattern, which
follows the Ubuntu way.
The idea is with a year and month in the release version you have more
information than in something like 7.0.75, you know when it has been
freezed
Each ASF project is free to use its own versioning pattern
NP
I am trying to point out that the documentation is inconsistent
within the page and seems not to match reality.
It needs to be updated by someone who knows the truth and can fix the
places where it needs it.
I know the truth :p.
And nothing need to be fixed
You can apologize, I'll not mind :p
I don't owe anyone an apology since I wrote nothing that was directed
against anyone but were comments on the project documentation from a new
System Administrator's point of view.
The version description is obscure to someone outside the project and
needs to be fixed.
However, if you feel that anything that I wrote was directed against
you, I apologize for leaving you with that impression.
If pointing out errors or shortcomings in the documentation is
"ranting". I will try to "rant" as constructively as possible.
Yes thanks, but be sure to understand before, else you will get some
other RTFMs
I am probably a good target reader.
- Native English speaker
- Undergraduate and graduate degrees in Computer Science with 40 years
of experience with about 20+ of it as System administrator (mostly
Linux) and lead software developer (Java, MySQL, Spring).
I have a pretty good idea about the documentation required to have a
smooth installation and operation.
If I can not understand the docs, then they need probably need to be
clarified.
I think that my comments on the installation were accurate and did
result in missing information being added to the docs.
I hope that my comments on the Download page will help other new System
Administrators understand the release structure more easily.
I appreciate that it is difficult to write documentation when the author
is an expert in the topic.
It is hard to put oneself into the mindset of someone who knows nothing
about the product or the discussions that have gone into the design and
is trying to learn everything that they need to know from written docs.
Ron
Jacques
Ron
Jacques
Le 06/08/2014 21:18, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
The page should be changed to reflect the actual policy.
13.07 seems like an odd way to number the first release of the 13
major version. I don't see it in the distribution page.
I certainly makes it more difficult to understand and makes it
harder to use any of the Maven Release tools
I guess that it does put some pressure on the PMC to get stuff done
since the second digit has to be selected at the start of the release.
You are committing to a release month before you start the work.
Ron
On 06/08/2014 3:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Ron,
In 2009 or thereabouts the PMC decided to adopt the Ubuntu way of
numbering OFBiz releases. Since then every year in april a release
was cut. But as the number of active committers is decreasing the
time to release a cut takes more time. Last year broke with that
policy, resulting in a release been cut with number 13.07.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ron Wheeler
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
https://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html page needs updating.
Is the 12.04.05 release date closer to being known?
The description of the Release number says that release numbers
consist of 2 parts
"The naming convention for OFBiz releases is*<Major Release
Number>.<Minor Release Number>"*
but the releases seem to have 3 digits. Patch description
missing.
The 13.x.x series part of the page puzzles me.
It seems to indicate that some early versions 13.0.0, 13.07.01
should already be able to be downloaded.
It also seems to indicate that the 13.x.x will be released in
2014
which means that it should have a 14.x.x release number.
I am not sure why a non-standard pattern of release
identification
was adopted but it is confusing and now inconsistent.
It leads to the impression that the project is not active
since it
missed 2013 altogether.
Would it not be possible/"good thing" to adopt a standard pattern
of releases where the first digit indicates major change with
some
risk of serious work required to upgrade, second digit indicating
significant new functionality but no change to the existing data
structure or functions that are not changing and the last digits
indicating a minor bug fix?
Ron
-- Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 <tel:866-970-2435%2C%20ext%20102>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
