[Scribus] Proposal for a new versioning scheme (Was: Many Versions = 2)

[Maciej Hanski]

avox wrote:
> We also use the even/odd versioning scheme, so
> 
> 1.2.x - stable
> 1.3.x - development
> 1.4.x - stable
> 1.5.x - development
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, when developing version 1.3.3, we realized that
> a) most users used the latest development release (1.3.2 or 1.3.3) instead
> of 1.2
> b) we needed to break some things really badly in the next development
> release (1.3.4)
> 
> So we just declared 1.3.3.x as the latest stable version (that's why I also
> call it a stabilized
> development version) and have been releasing minor stable version 1.3.3.x
> ever since.
> 
> Then we went on and broke lots of stuff in the 1.3.4 development version.
> Still, some users use that version...
> 
> After that, we ported Scribus from Qt3 to Qt4, that took a long time and we
> had to rewrite lots of code.
> During that time we also fixed a lot of the bugs present in 1.3.4, and
> accepted additional contributions
> (two GSoC projects: LaTeX frames and imposition, aspell plugin). So we hope
> that, when it's released,
> 1.3.5 will be a better 1.3.4 - but still a development version.
> 
> I think we'll also rework our roadmap: lot's of the stuff is going to be
> moved to 1.5.x so we can release
> a stable 1.4 earlier. Missing stuff before 1.4 is mainly fileformat changes
> and internal object model.
> 
> My guess is we'll see 1.3.6, 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 and then 1.4.

I think these are perfectly valid reasons for the current versioning
scheme of Scribus releases, and I consider stabilizing the 1.3.3 branch
a wise step. However, while everybody on this list will -- sooner or
later -- know the difference between 1.3.3.* and 1.3.* branches (at
least after having read the above explanations), this subtle difference
in numbering seems to cause some confusion in the outer world -- e.g.
this article http://www.linux.com/feature/123592 or comments to this one
http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2008/12178.html prove that some people got
mixed up.

On the other side, the growing gap between 1.3.3.* and 1.3.* would
justify  much bolder difference in version numbers. I wonder, if it
isn't time to reconsider the version numbers and make a clean cut as
soon as possible. E.g.:

 * 1.3.3.11 could become the 1.4 release (stable branch, 1.3.3.10
deserves it, imho)

 * 1.3.5 could be the 1.5 release (developement branch)

This move would hurt only for a short while (nothing, you cannot iron
out with decent release notes) and spare us some confusion in the long run.

What do you think?

cheers
Maciej