[sakai2-tcc] Versioning question

[Berg, Alan]

Hi all,

Chuck and Anthony were right of course, we should separate the conversation out. Here is the recap over the version question in a separate thread.

The pluses for a major number change so far:

1) David Howitz, builds need to change so major number change is an honest indicator
2)  Commercials prefer visioning in line with other products in the market.
3) AMB: Confident messaging, with some nice features and usages emerging.

Chuck, can you please recap the minus points.

Regards,
           Alan


Alan Berg

Innovation working group
On the use of ICT in Education & Research
University of Amsterdam
________________________________
From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] on behalf of David Horwitz [david.horwitz at uct.ac.za]
Sent: 18 June 2013 15:26
To: Charles Severance
Cc: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Proposal: eliminate all indies, re-version trunk to CLE 4.0

The complication from a technical standpoint is that we may well be introducing compatibility issues (thinking of the spring & hibernate upgrades here). Not sure that a tool built against 2.9 will work in 2.10 - so purely from that point of view a major increment is more than justified.

D

On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 09:20 -0400, Charles Severance wrote:

I wish we had separated the "lets fix the indies" from "what version to use"

My problem with Sakai 4.0 is dishonesty.   We have spent a lot of time undoing the damage done by those who felt that marketing and symbolic gestures were good strategies to draw resources to a project.

The Moodle 1.x to 2.x was a painful transition and people stayed away from upgrading for about two years as the 2.0 product bounced back and forth and finally stabilized around 2.2 - nobody wants to buy a car build on a Monday - who wants

"Sakai 3" was vastly overhyped - the further away the community is away from the TCC - the more they will assume that there is substance to the "4.0" moniker.   The people the furthest away are the most easily confused by little things and the most difficult to de-confuse.  I expect that once we get outside this group - most will immediately assume that Sakai 4 is the revamped OAE + Sakai in Hybrid mode - that we resurrected hybrid mode.

In this era of cloud computing and live deployment - version numbers are less and less how to communicate project vitality.

We just got the community to be mostly on the same release - we tell leading schools to plan for an upgrade from 2.9.2 to 4.0 next June - most will never upgrade as it will sound difficult and risky.  We should be conservative and let next year be 2.10 (communicating clearly that this is an easy upgrade) and then take the bolder step two years from now.

With all that said, the 2.10 release is shaping up to be pretty impressive if all goes well.  It should have Mobile, Elastic Search, and Dashboard - all pretty impressive steps forward and bordering on a major version number in celebration of that cool progress.

My recommendation is to stick with 2.10 for next year's release and then the following year release 3.0 after a year of tightening and cleanup.   By then the "Sakai 3" issue will be quite fades and OAE should be on a nice upward success curve.

Oh yea and change the msgcntr maven coordinates.

/Chuck

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org<mailto:sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org>
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc



________________________________
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20130618/0555b7c3/attachment.html