Version Numbers?

[JJackman]

I'm a little confused by the CMSMS version numbers -- the development tracks from 0.7 to 0.1 and current is 0.13, which normally is pretty near an alpha development version --

The software looks pretty stable, why are you still using pre-1 numbering?

Just curious --

John Jackman

[Ted]

Well, we have a pretty clear cut list of what needs to be done to be considered 1.0.  A lot as to do with documentation, but there is a feature list we're going for too....  we just haven't settled on a timeline yet.

Anyway, major versions are 0.1 (read as 0.01) through 0.13.  Keeping in mind that 0.10 is higher than 0.9.  Minor versions get a .1, .2 etc appended onto that.

[stopsatgreen]

On a related subject, the roadmap is very helpful but now out of date. Is there any chance of a new version? Also, I believe you mentioned a 0.14 in another thread - is that likely to happen?

Those questions are just to satisfy my curiosity; I think you have a fantastic piece of software, so I'm happy with whatever you release!

[Ted]

0.14 will definitely happen.  The list of stuff isn't finalized, but it's going to be at least an integrated Search and the events stuff that was discussed earlier (and probably only of interest of the devs and other uber geeks).

As for the roadmap, yes, we definitely need to finalize it.  It's one of those things I really want to do, but as new ideas keep showing up, it's getting harder to nail down an actual list of "must have"s.

[stopsatgreen]

And an overhaul of the News module (to at least have pagination in the results, etc) - is that likely to be in 1.0?

[calguy1000]

see what he means.... the list just never stops growing

[JJackman]

Ted,

It seems like you are committed to this odd version numbering system, but please pass this comment on to the team -- from a person who has been writing magazine reviews of video-related software for over fifteen years:  It's whacky and out of keeping with any practice I've seen before.  I normally don't bother to look at anything until it's in very late beta, and I almost didn't bother to even LOOK at your CMS because of the version number.  While you may have an ambitious roadmap and don't wish to label the version "1.0" until you hit the planned goal, most other projects like this would be calling this "version 1.3."  Version numbers are an informal language that carry associations to the world outside your team.  I'd recommend revising the numbering.

I like the system, it looks stable and easy to learn for "ordinary folks," which most CMSs are not.  But I'd hesitate to tell a paying web client that I was going to use a "Version 0.13" CMS on their site -- even though I probably wouldn't hesitate to use your system.

John Jackman

[stopsatgreen]

@ JJackman:

It's whacky and out of keeping with any practice I've seen before.

It's what Mozilla uses for all of it's releases, as well as a lot of other new startups such as Songbird, Flock, etc. It's a way of saying "this isn't the finished version, but feel free to give it a go."

[Ted]

I've had a discussion about this topic with a few members of the group.  I think JJackman is right.  I'll be doing a lot of roadmap stuff in the next couple of days and as I would've not even been thinking 1.0 yet, I'm seriously considering making it a reality sooner than originally planned.  1.0 should be about stability, and I think we're pretty much there.  I have a few more features I want to add yet, but I think the time is coming soon.  We'll see.

[JJackman]

It's what Mozilla uses for all of it's releases, as well as a lot of other new startups such as Songbird, Flock, etc. It's a way of saying "this isn't the finished version, but feel free to give it a go."

No, I disagree rather emphatically.  Mozilla went from Netscape 6.0 to v. 0.6 at the branch when it went open source (understandable, new branch) and crept rapidly up to 1.0.  Flock has labelled its 0.5.x releases as "technology preview," the Cardinal release will be its first "Public Beta" and that will be 0.7.  There is an accepted vernacular which certainly has some variance but not that much. 

Numbers like 0.1.3 are normally designations of early internal alpha versions.  The error, I think, was in progressing from  0.7 (normally a beta designation) to 0.1 instead of 1.0 at that point.

While documentation is great (I'm all for it and complain about its lack) a great many open source projects are at full v 2.x/3.x without any better docs than you have.

CMSMS may not have all the features the programmers plan to include, but it is not alpha software and seems well beyond normal early beta in stability.  Add to this the fact that this is software that one might use professionally with a paying client to design/host their site.  Not very confidence-inspiring for the paying customer to find out they are using Version 0.13.   

John Jackman

[calguy1000]

After much discussion, review of the history of CMS, and looking at what JJackman had to say, we've decided to take the plunge.

We're now working on 1.0-svn, the first 1.0 beta should be out within the next two to three weeks (should, I say should.... ). 

We're going to strive for a very stable release with two, or maybe three beta cycles, and limit the feature requests to "more or less what's in SVN now", though we all know a few more things will creep in there.

Ted, correct me please if I have erred.

[me=calguy1000]now waits for all the "when will 1.0 be out?" questions.  So I can reply with "When it's ready"  [/me]