> On 07/08/2014 9:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Ron Wheeler
>> <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> That is not what the doc says. It says that 13.01 should be the first
>>> release of the 13 series.
>> No, this is not what the doc says, please read carefully.
>>
>>> "<Minor Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if
>>> specified) is the first release from the branch; 02 is the second
>>> etc...; for a given Major Release Number you should always use the
>>> release with the highest Minor Release Number because it represents
>>> the latest bug fix release for the Major Release Number you are using."
>> Exactly,
>>
>> and the first minor release number is always 01, then 02, then 03 and
>> so on.
>> The only part where you are wrong is the major release number that is
>> "13.07" and not, as you assume, "13". As explained in the docs our
>> major release number is in the format: YY.MM
>> Frankly speaking I don't like the format of the major release number
>> (as I mentioned a few times) but it is what it is and changing it now
>> may add further confusion.
> I get it now.
> That is a very non-standard way to version things.
>
> Here are a couple of suggestions about how to fix the docs to make this
> clearer to someone used to "normal" 3 part versioning.
> Possible change:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number> where:"
> could be changed to:
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Major Release
> Number>.<Minor Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> This would at least alert the reader to the fact that something unusual
> is coming and needs to be read carefully.
>
> "a new Major Release Number is normally created every year in April
> (09.04, 10.04, 11.04 etc...)" should probably be removed since it is not
> true for the current active release "13.07"
>
> Alternatively, a more radical change that makes it much clearer by
> eliminating Major Release Number which has a commonly understood usage
> within Apache that is different.
> "The naming convention for OFBiz releases is <Release Freeze
> Date>.<Release Number> for example <13.07>.<04> where:"
> <Release Freeze Date> is in the format of <YY.MM> where YY and MM are
> the year and month of the date of the feature freeze;
> <Release Number> is a two digit sequential number: 01 (if specified) is
> the first release from the branch; 02 is the second etc...; for a given
> Release Freeze Date you should always use the release with the highest
> Release Freeze Date because it represents the latest bug fix release for
> the Release Freeze Date you are using.
>
> The creation of the release branch is an internal process of no concern
> to the user so just referring to the feature freeze is sufficient.
>
>
> This section needs to be updated since 13.07.01 and 13.07.02 are not
> released.
> "Tentative release schedule for the 13.07 series:
> June 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.01
> August 2014 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.02
> March 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.03
> September 2015 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.04
> April 2016 - Apache OFBiz 13.07.05 (last release of the 13.07 series)"
>
> I gather that this page will be updated soon, so it would be a good time
> to fix these as well.
>
>
>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Locked
