Re: The next Gnome Office release.

[Charles Goodwin <charlie xwt org>]

+1 Generally makes sense / sounds sensible.

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:50 -0600, Ryan Pavlik wrote:
> I think Charles brings up a good point here: integration is seen as
> weaker when a "better", newer version of a program is available
> separately than can be gotten through the suite.  I also see the view
> that too many "micro" versions will be confusing. So, here is an idea,
> complete with new terminology...
> Updates to either the Major or Minor version number (such as 1.0 to 2.0
> or 2.0 to 2.2), such as a new "stable" series (for Abi at least), are
> hereafter known as "Big Upgrades".   Micro versions (2.0.6) that feature
> critical/common bug fixes that most users will want are hereafter known
> as "big _updates_".
> 
> GO increments to a new Major or Minor version as a suite when sufficient
> core applications have completed a Big Upgrade, and developers deem it
> time for a new series (new deps, etc...), at developer's discretion.
> Each big update of a core app that is seen as essential (like 2.0.5
> pretty much was for Abi Win32) will cause the release of a new Micro
> version number of GO, packaging all the latest updates at the time of
> release.  On the GO site, along with the official most recent Micro
> version, users have quick access to "individually update" components of
> GO that have had Micro/bug fix versions released, without leaving the GO
> web site.  This could be as simple as a link to the download from the
> project site, or more complex (auto downloader, some sort of scripted
> packager, or whatever.).  These updates preferably would change some
> value allowing their presence to be easily noted in bug reports without
> anyone blinking at it.  That way, the 'average user' will get the
> essential big updates, not be overwhelmed by a GO v1.2.45sp9, and those
> with special needs that require a bug fix can still get it from the
> "official" GO source, providing a solid, stable marketing front.  Users
> will not need to dig through each project's site in order to get the
> "latest and greatest", but we maintain control over a sane pace of
> standard, full packages.
> 
> How does this sound?  It shouldn't be _too_ much more work for the
> packagers, since the "little updates" (non-big micro versions) of each
> app are packaged anyway, and could just be linked for simplicity.
> 
> Thoughts? Comments? Flames? Jests?
> 
> Hope this makes sense...
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-office-list mailing list
> gnome-office-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-office-list

-- 
- Charlie

Charles Goodwin <charlie xwt org>
Online @ http://www.charlietech.com