Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
Hi,
thinking out loud, so don't take me too seriously but... should we follow the GeoTools example and
switch GeoServer version numbering to a "x.y" approach, just like GeoTools did?

I keep on having people asking me things like "but is Geoserver 2.13.1 much different than 2.8.3?"
Heck yes, it's years of development in between... it's a major jump, even if the number may not make
it look like that.

GeoServer 1.x ended at 1.7, so GeoServer 2.14.0 should likely be renamed to 22 (7 + 14 + 1, counting
also 2.0.0 in the mix).

We were keeping 3.x for a "epic storm" kind of change, but even when we switched to 2.x we maintained
seamless upgrades, so I guess it's not just in our style to do that kind of change, and we can probably
drop the "2."

Opinions?

Cheers
Andrea


== GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Chris Snider

Just a thought;

 

Many businesses and governments will grant a project authority to include a major level of a product, for example GeoServer 2.x.  If GeoServer moves to a version numbering scheme that adjusts the commonly viewed major version number, then these users may not be able to upgrade as readily.  These types of institutions have a longer lead time to approve major upgrades from 2.x to 3.x etc.

 

Chris Snider

Senior Software Engineer

cid:image001.png@01D2E6A5.9104F820

 

From: Andrea Aime [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:33 AM
To: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

Hi,

thinking out loud, so don't take me too seriously but... should we follow the GeoTools example and

switch GeoServer version numbering to a "x.y" approach, just like GeoTools did?

 

I keep on having people asking me things like "but is Geoserver 2.13.1 much different than 2.8.3?"

Heck yes, it's years of development in between... it's a major jump, even if the number may not make

it look like that.

 

GeoServer 1.x ended at 1.7, so GeoServer 2.14.0 should likely be renamed to 22 (7 + 14 + 1, counting

also 2.0.0 in the mix).

 

We were keeping 3.x for a "epic storm" kind of change, but even when we switched to 2.x we maintained

seamless upgrades, so I guess it's not just in our style to do that kind of change, and we can probably

drop the "2."

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

== GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Chris Snider <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a thought;

 

Many businesses and governments will grant a project authority to include a major level of a product, for example GeoServer 2.x.  If GeoServer moves to a version numbering scheme that adjusts the commonly viewed major version number, then these users may not be able to upgrade as readily.  These types of institutions have a longer lead time to approve major upgrades from 2.x to 3.x etc.


Wondering what do they do with popular browsers, updating their major number once every few months?

Cheers
Andrea

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Chris Snider

My experience has been that some projects are stuck on old browsers for a long time.  For example, one project was stuck on Internet Explorer 11.0 for several years, and I believe has only recently been approved to move to Edge.

 

Same thing applied to Firefox, although I don’t recall what version it was stuck on for the longest before upgrades happened.

 

Chris Snider

Senior Software Engineer

cid:image001.png@01D2E6A5.9104F820

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andrea Aime
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 11:27 AM
To: Chris Snider <[hidden email]>
Cc: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Chris Snider <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a thought;

 

Many businesses and governments will grant a project authority to include a major level of a product, for example GeoServer 2.x.  If GeoServer moves to a version numbering scheme that adjusts the commonly viewed major version number, then these users may not be able to upgrade as readily.  These types of institutions have a longer lead time to approve major upgrades from 2.x to 3.x etc.

 

Wondering what do they do with popular browsers, updating their major number once every few months?

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

bradh
In reply to this post by geowolf

I would suggest adopting semantic versioning, which means everything will be major versions (because of the geotools versioning). Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.

 

I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product (which could have some / all of the extensions bundled into the war.zip / -bin.zip) and uses a 1.0.aMxb (where Mx is “maintenance release”). Then a is the major release and b is the minor release versions. Would that work for you Chris?

 

From: Andrea Aime <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 2:33 AM
To: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

Hi,

thinking out loud, so don't take me too seriously but... should we follow the GeoTools example and

switch GeoServer version numbering to a "x.y" approach, just like GeoTools did?

 

I keep on having people asking me things like "but is Geoserver 2.13.1 much different than 2.8.3?"

Heck yes, it's years of development in between... it's a major jump, even if the number may not make

it look like that.

 

GeoServer 1.x ended at 1.7, so GeoServer 2.14.0 should likely be renamed to 22 (7 + 14 + 1, counting

also 2.0.0 in the mix).

 

We were keeping 3.x for a "epic storm" kind of change, but even when we switched to 2.x we maintained

seamless upgrades, so I guess it's not just in our style to do that kind of change, and we can probably

drop the "2."

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

== GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Chris Snider

I am going to forward this chain to another couple of people internal here and get back to you.

 

Chris Snider

Senior Software Engineer

cid:image001.png@01D2E6A5.9104F820

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:14 PM
To: 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>; 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

I would suggest adopting semantic versioning, which means everything will be major versions (because of the geotools versioning). Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.

 

I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product (which could have some / all of the extensions bundled into the war.zip / -bin.zip) and uses a 1.0.aMxb (where Mx is “maintenance release”). Then a is the major release and b is the minor release versions. Would that work for you Chris?

 

From: Andrea Aime <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 2:33 AM
To: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

Hi,

thinking out loud, so don't take me too seriously but... should we follow the GeoTools example and

switch GeoServer version numbering to a "x.y" approach, just like GeoTools did?

 

I keep on having people asking me things like "but is Geoserver 2.13.1 much different than 2.8.3?"

Heck yes, it's years of development in between... it's a major jump, even if the number may not make

it look like that.

 

GeoServer 1.x ended at 1.7, so GeoServer 2.14.0 should likely be renamed to 22 (7 + 14 + 1, counting

also 2.0.0 in the mix).

 

We were keeping 3.x for a "epic storm" kind of change, but even when we switched to 2.x we maintained

seamless upgrades, so I guess it's not just in our style to do that kind of change, and we can probably

drop the "2."

 

Opinions?

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

== GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by geowolf

Hi Andrea,

I believe it was Chrome that popularised the "every other release is a major release" thing, and so of course FireFox ended up following suit (number envy?). Fortunately FireFox has LTS\ESR releases, so sensible organisations use those.

Personally I'm a fan of the current Semantic Versioning - https://semver.org/ - At least I'm assuming that's what GS is using and it's not just a coincidence. Sure GS has major new features in 2.12.x that are not in 2.8.x, but it's basically API compatible between versions. The recent QGIS 2.x to 3.x is a prime example of a good use of a Major increase because it is largely API incompatible.

I suppose if GeoServer is going to continue always being backwards compatible then switching number scheme away won't lose anything, and in this era of version inflation it may become clearer to some users how far behind they are. But if it later starts having jumps where the API changes significantly (ala QGIS 2->3), that's going to get really confusing ("So lets see, 34 can go to... 43, then you need to manually go to 44, then you ....").

This reminded me of the thread last year where I posted the versions for public GeoServer boxes - http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Stats-on-GeoServer-versions-as-currently-deployed-td5314686.html - it really depends what the motivations are for the old versions. I haven't done similar with MapServer as yet which might offer some interesting insights into the end-user psychology of upgrading as they're at 7.1 I think, but over 20+ years.

Just my 2p,

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2018-07-12 18:27, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Chris Snider <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a thought;

 

Many businesses and governments will grant a project authority to include a major level of a product, for example GeoServer 2.x.  If GeoServer moves to a version numbering scheme that adjusts the commonly viewed major version number, then these users may not be able to upgrade as readily.  These types of institutions have a longer lead time to approve major upgrades from 2.x to 3.x etc.


Wondering what do they do with popular browsers, updating their major number once every few months?

Cheers
Andrea
==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot


_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
In reply to this post by bradh
On 13/07/18 10:13, [hidden email] wrote:
> Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.

This. Which would make the next GeoServer 20.0. GeoWebCache could get
the same treatment.

Unless we want to call them all 2018.10 (given that 18.x is already in
the past).  :-P

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

bradh
Or the next geotools is 22.0. Version numbers are pretty cheap, wasting a few isn't a big deal.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 9:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>; 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

On 13/07/18 10:13, [hidden email] wrote:
> Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.

This. Which would make the next GeoServer 20.0. GeoWebCache could get the same treatment.

Unless we want to call them all 2018.10 (given that 18.x is already in the past).  :-P

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

bradh
In reply to this post by Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
Slightly tangential: The date-based thing might work well if we're going to do the Enterprise versioning packaging.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 9:06 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>; 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

On 13/07/18 10:13, [hidden email] wrote:
> Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.

This. Which would make the next GeoServer 20.0. GeoWebCache could get the same treatment.

Unless we want to call them all 2018.10 (given that 18.x is already in the past).  :-P

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
In reply to this post by bradh
I do not understand why 22.0. I could understand 2.14.0 -> 14.0 (like
Solaris) and then max(GT_VERSION, GS_VERSION). Is 22.0 a typo, or
/r/woooosh?

On 13/07/18 11:21, [hidden email] wrote:

> Or the next geotools is 22.0. Version numbers are pretty cheap, wasting a few isn't a big deal.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 9:06 AM
> To: [hidden email]; 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>; 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?
>
> On 13/07/18 10:13, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.
>
> This. Which would make the next GeoServer 20.0. GeoWebCache could get the same treatment.
>
> Unless we want to call them all 2018.10 (given that 18.x is already in the past).  :-P
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand
>
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

bradh
Just that Andrea suggested the next version of GeoServer be 22.0 (see Subject line) with some pseudo-math support argument. I'm not particularly worried about what we call it (GS 20.0 works for me), but consistency would be helpful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 9:35 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>; 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

I do not understand why 22.0. I could understand 2.14.0 -> 14.0 (like
Solaris) and then max(GT_VERSION, GS_VERSION). Is 22.0 a typo, or /r/woooosh?

On 13/07/18 11:21, [hidden email] wrote:

> Or the next geotools is 22.0. Version numbers are pretty cheap, wasting a few isn't a big deal.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, 13 July 2018 9:06 AM
> To: [hidden email]; 'Andrea Aime' <[hidden email]>;
> 'Geoserver-devel' <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?
>
> On 13/07/18 10:13, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Having geoserver and geotools use the same version numbers would probably be easier to remember.
>
> This. Which would make the next GeoServer 20.0. GeoWebCache could get the same treatment.
>
> Unless we want to call them all 2018.10 (given that 18.x is already in
> the past).  :-P
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand
>
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/> New Zealand


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
In reply to this post by Jonathan Moules-4
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Andrea,

I believe it was Chrome that popularised the "every other release is a major release" thing, and so of course FireFox ended up following suit (number envy?). Fortunately FireFox has LTS\ESR releases, so sensible organisations use those.

Personally I'm a fan of the current Semantic Versioning - https://semver.org/ - At least I'm assuming that's what GS is using and it's not just a coincidence. Sure GS has major new features in 2.12.x that are not in 2.8.x, but it's basically API compatible between versions. The recent QGIS 2.x to 3.x is a prime example of a good use of a Major increase because it is largely API incompatible.

I suppose if GeoServer is going to continue always being backwards compatible then switching number scheme away won't lose anything, and in this era of version inflation it may become clearer to some users how far behind they are. But if it later starts having jumps where the API changes significantly (ala QGIS 2->3), that's going to get really confusing ("So lets see, 34 can go to... 43, then you need to manually go to 44, then you ....").

Yeah, we did not have such a massive change not even between 1.x and 2.x in GeoServer, the motivation to switch from 1.x to 2.x was the different UI and on disk configuration storage.
API wise in GeoServer we don't really have a "public API management" like in GeoTools, any API change is basically fair game unless it touches a extension point interface,
and even in that case, we just don't backport the change to stable and maintenance, but it just goes in the next 2.X.y release.

This reminded me of the thread last year where I posted the versions for public GeoServer boxes - http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Stats-on-GeoServer-versions-as-currently-deployed-td5314686.html - it really depends what the motivations are for the old versions. I haven't done similar with MapServer as yet which might offer some interesting insights into the end-user psychology of upgrading as they're at 7.1 I think, but over 20+ years.

Yeah, for comparison I wondered "what made MapServer go to 7.0?". This is the list:

Hum... the changes we share in there got into a GeoServer release without any major number switch. They were distributed in a larger number
of releases, mostly because we release a 2.x with new features every six months (that's why I was thinking of browser versioning scheme,
the way our releases work is similar to those, continuous steady change instead of just fixes for a while and then a major release with lots of new stuff).
In the end that's the "problem" in terms of user perception, there are no sudden jumps but there is also a constant flow of new features.
If you switch between 2.12.x and 2.13.x there are not that many changes [1], but if you switch between 2.8.x and 2.13.x there is a ton [2].... how do we communicate that?

Cheers
Andrea

[1] Cheap commit count between releases, considering also GeoTools changes, since GeoServer is normally the driver for the bulk of them:
gs> git log 2.12.0..2.13.0 --pretty=oneline | wc -l 
527
gt> git log 18.0..19.0 --pretty=oneline | wc -l 
271

[2]
gs> git log 2.8.0..2.13.0 --pretty=oneline | wc -l
3603
gt> git log 14.0..19.0 --pretty=oneline | wc -l
2045


== GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
In reply to this post by Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
I do not understand why 22.0. I could understand 2.14.0 -> 14.0 (like Solaris) and then max(GT_VERSION, GS_VERSION). Is 22.0 a typo, or /r/woooosh?

GeoTools dropped the first number without counting the 1.x history because 2.0 was a total rewrite, with a completely different focus.
GeoServer went to 2.x because of user facing reasons, and had two modules significantly changed (config storage and UI),
but for example two others, WFS and WMS, had a major API change without any major release bump (when switched from old to new dispatcher,
e.g., the WMS one happened around 2010, in ), 
or think when modularisation and Spring were introducted, which I believe was between 1.3.x and 1.4.x, large change without any real outside notice.

This made me do the  "7 + 14 + 1, counting also 2.0.0 in the mix" math, version 1.x went up to 1.7, version 2.x is going to be at 2.14
in September, and we also need to count 2.0 as a release. All in all it has been a continuous stream of changes, 2.0 received 
a bump because the changes were "in user's face" and using the product felt different, at least to admins.

Anyways, as said, I was just "thinking out loud", it's not a firm proposal to switch to 22.x, I was more interested in a discussion
about it rather than hellbent on changing the version number per se.

Cheers
Andrea

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
In reply to this post by bradh
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product


A enterprise/LTS version has been discussed a number of times.

Community wise, it's normally costly. It's already hard enough to backport something from master to 2.12.x (gave up a 
number of times already), trying to keep fixes going back on something older is going to be even more challenging.
As said in other threads, I believe we are at full capacity (well, beyond it imho) and need to reduce effort, not increase it further.
Unless one can argue that having a LTS would bring more devs acting as maintainers to the project (key-word being
maintainer, more occasional contributors would just add to the existing maintainers plate, which is already overflowing).

A way to justify that is if the enterprise version is a paid product, then you can justify spending hours porting back
a 10 liner because there is a revenue stream attached. That has also been tried, kept around for a while,
was not well received by the potential customers and then dropped.

Cheers
Andrea

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Chris Snider

As Andrea stated in another email on the thread, this is for discussion and not an direct contradiction to changing the versioning scheme.  Mostly it is to raise awareness on how some customers treat product upgrades, right/wrong/indifferent.

 

However, I did raise the question with several product owners in the company, and the general consensus confirms my initial thought that it would be more difficult to move to newer “major” releases. 

 

Chris Snider

Senior Software Engineer

cid:image001.png@01D2E6A5.9104F820

 

From: Andrea Aime [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:50 AM
To: Brad Hards <[hidden email]>
Cc: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product

 

A enterprise/LTS version has been discussed a number of times.

 

Community wise, it's normally costly. It's already hard enough to backport something from master to 2.12.x (gave up a 

number of times already), trying to keep fixes going back on something older is going to be even more challenging.

As said in other threads, I believe we are at full capacity (well, beyond it imho) and need to reduce effort, not increase it further.

Unless one can argue that having a LTS would bring more devs acting as maintainers to the project (key-word being

maintainer, more occasional contributors would just add to the existing maintainers plate, which is already overflowing).

 

A way to justify that is if the enterprise version is a paid product, then you can justify spending hours porting back

a 10 liner because there is a revenue stream attached. That has also been tried, kept around for a while,

was not well received by the potential customers and then dropped.

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

bradh

So the problem isn’t what is actually in a particular build, just what we call it. Long term support (backporting further than we do now) is an orthogonal issue, and is not what I was suggesting.

 

I was suggesting making upgrades (potentially) easier using a combination of two things:

  • A different versioning scheme (see below)
  • Putting everything that might be needed in a single zip file (geoserver-with-extensions-war.zip)

Using a single zip file can reduce paperwork for getting files into certain environments (6 zip files = 6 times as many paperwork submissions)

 

The versioning scheme would be mappable to the current and future schemes:

Current plan GeoServer 2.14.0 would become GeoServer 22.0 or GeoServer 20.0, and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.1 (since no-one wants to field 1.0.0, right 😊)

Current plan GeoServer 2.14.1 would become GeoServer 22.1 or GeoServer 20.1, and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.1Mx1

Current plan GeoServer 2.15.0 would become GeoServer 23.0 or GeoServer 21.0, and would form the core of GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0.2

Note that the “GeoServer BogoEnterprise 1.0” part of the name can be anything (and probably should be something else). We could use “GeoServer UltraStable 2.13”.

 

The only things that would change in an implementation sense would be to add another release module (to pick up all the core + extensions we want to include) and a rename step in the release script. It might be nice if we could read the version from a config file or something, and to generate docs with a different cover page, but that isn’t really that important.

 

Brad

From: Chris Snider <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 2:51 AM
To: Andrea Aime <[hidden email]>; Brad Hards <[hidden email]>
Cc: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

As Andrea stated in another email on the thread, this is for discussion and not an direct contradiction to changing the versioning scheme.  Mostly it is to raise awareness on how some customers treat product upgrades, right/wrong/indifferent.

 

However, I did raise the question with several product owners in the company, and the general consensus confirms my initial thought that it would be more difficult to move to newer “major” releases. 

 

Chris Snider

Senior Software Engineer

cid:image001.png@01D2E6A5.9104F820

 

From: Andrea Aime [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:50 AM
To: Brad Hards <[hidden email]>
Cc: Geoserver-devel <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

 

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do get Chris’ concern (its mainly a US DoD thing – version numbers define the amount of testing and the authorities / paper work required; makes no sense at all, just policy). One work around could be an “Enterprise GeoServer” product

 

A enterprise/LTS version has been discussed a number of times.

 

Community wise, it's normally costly. It's already hard enough to backport something from master to 2.12.x (gave up a 

number of times already), trying to keep fixes going back on something older is going to be even more challenging.

As said in other threads, I believe we are at full capacity (well, beyond it imho) and need to reduce effort, not increase it further.

Unless one can argue that having a LTS would bring more devs acting as maintainers to the project (key-word being

maintainer, more occasional contributors would just add to the existing maintainers plate, which is already overflowing).

 

A way to justify that is if the enterprise version is a paid product, then you can justify spending hours porting back

a 10 liner because there is a revenue stream attached. That has also been tried, kept around for a while,

was not well received by the potential customers and then dropped.

 

Cheers

Andrea

 

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
In reply to this post by geowolf
I think it is a great idea, and if you can give me a version number
discount to 20.0, I will be buying.  ;-)

On 13/07/18 18:34, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Anyways, as said, I was just "thinking out loud", it's not a firm proposal
> to switch to 22.x, I was more interested in a discussion
> about it rather than hellbent on changing the version number per se.

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thinking out loud... should the next GeoServer be "GeoServer 22.0"?

geowolf
Hum... with the comments about the upgrades, and also checking similar situations in house,
I guess that it's best to keep the current versioning scheme after all.

Punching through red tape is often way too hard, in many organizations it's applied as the law,
with no checks and no commons sense ("let's upgrade to 2.256.3, yeah, it's just a minor upgrade
from 2.2.1, thus does not break any rule"... who cares that the entire codebase has been rewritten
10-fold in the meantime :-p )

Cheers
Andrea


On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think it is a great idea, and if you can give me a version number discount to 20.0, I will be buying.  ;-)

On 13/07/18 18:34, Andrea Aime wrote:
Anyways, as said, I was just "thinking out loud", it's not a firm proposal
to switch to 22.x, I was more interested in a discussion
about it rather than hellbent on changing the version number per se.

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand



--

Regards, Andrea Aime == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel