Proposals (Political/Workflow) #4477

Rewrite version & Version format

Added by Steven G. almost 3 years ago. Updated almost 3 years ago.

Status:NewStart date:03/12/2012
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:-
Target version:-

Description

This is from a short discussion on the forum on versions:

4 would be a complete rewrite from the ground up with completely new ideas, like going from v2 -> v3.

If that's the case shouldn't the issue tracker contain a (in this case) "v4-proposal" tag or version for submitting issue against it. Since technically the next major version and the next rewrite version are independent of each other. Of course I mean this in the general sense, as in if this was v4 now, there should be a v5-proposals and so on. The idea being that you accept suggestions, features, etc that don't fit withing the current philosophy but might be something to consider some time in the future when the slate is wiped clean (ie. they are not wrong, but are too extreme for the current philosophy). Things like say reworking routes so the name and path is separate from it's definition (so they can be defined in modules, but configured at the application level), or requests that don't require URIs, or an abstraction of the entire head portion of a HTML document (ie. all the crawler, search engine, rss, stylesheet, head scripts, etc) so you can just write the page, not worry about the boiler plate code. Etc.

Regarding the format. I think whenever you move to 4 you should also take the chance to change it from: Kohana 4.1 (or whatever it is) to Kohana4 1.0, that way it's in line with people's expectations of rewrites being labeled by the name and not version, and also that the first digit in the version number is the major version, second digit is the minor version and third digit is the hotfix. I know I've read though the wiki article at least two times, and still made the mistake. I think it's simply too counter intuitive. Even if 4 is not merged into the name, at least the dot between 4 and the major version number should go: Kohana 4 1.0 so it hints that 4 is not the major version and it also clearly shows that this is no minor version (ie. it's the initial major version).

History

#1 Updated by Jeremy Bush almost 3 years ago

Note that many large projects also consider the second digit the major version. Linux is a prime example of this. They only recently moved to v3 after Linus decided that so much had changed that it didn't deserve to be v2 anymore. Of course, we won't make the decision like that.

I'm not sure we want to accept "feature requests" for v4, as it's not even in any planning stages right now.

#2 Updated by Steven G. almost 3 years ago

Jeremy Bush wrote:

I'm not sure we want to accept "feature requests" for v4, as it's not even in any planning stages right now.

Yeah that's why I started the issue. At least to me your current position seems ambiguous. There seems to be a barrier to just how extreme a change can be until it's in state of "not for v3" going by what Isaiah is saying in another issue, but then you have shadowhand on forum saying how it needs to go though the tracker. So it's basically a dead lock: it can't go on the tracker, but everything needs to go on the tracker. I completely understand if you don't want it to go on the tracker since well, it causes noise, but the issue of how things like that are handled still remains.

Regarding the naming, maybe a better name would be instead of "v4-proposals" something like "v4-wishlist" or something that just doesn't suggest that it's anything in the works. Not even linking it to a specific version would be ideal, but not sure how to phrase that with out it getting confused with "unscheduled".

Note that many large projects also consider the second digit the major version. Linux is a prime example of this. They only recently moved to v3 after Linus decided that so much had changed that it didn't deserve to be v2 anymore. Of course, we won't make the decision like that.

Yeah, but Linux is a pretty special project. :) And technically the people that understand the linux version system would understand the one I proposed, and kohana doesn't have any obligation to follow the linux version system. So going by which of the two is likely to get a better read the distinct-rewrite versioning system should be better.

Also available in: Atom PDF