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

Maciej Hanski ma_han2000
Wed Jan 9 21:49:27 CET 2008

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.:

 * could become the 1.4 release (stable branch,
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?


More information about the scribus mailing list