Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom at version 3.4?

[Bill Page]

On 6/26/07, Vadim V. Zhytnikov wrote:
> Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> > ...
> > Even more interesting. Since I see September 2006 on my banner
> > (which is> --patch-50), that should probably be something > 3.6.
> >
>
> No, quarterly gold releases in 2005 was numbered 3.4 (April 2005),
> 3.6 (June 2005), 3.9 (October 2005). In 2006 this numbering
> scheme was abolished.

Vadim, can you find any record of the decision to abolish this
numbering system? I tried to find some reference in the
axiom-developer archives but failed.

> I watch this Axiom Version discussion with moderate interest.
> Moderate since I already (twice AFAIR) suggested on this list
> to choose some release numbering scheme convenient for
> packaging (deb, rpm whatever) but found no understanding.
> Surely, packaging is a nuisance external to Axiom but  it is not
> wise to ignore this aspect of real life.

Indeed. I find it very embarrassing. :-(

> Once again I venture to suggest two things
>
> 1. Please, make regular _tarball_ releases.
>     No CVS, SVN etc - these are for development not for releases.
>
> 2. Choose some X.Y.Z... numbering scheme
>     for these releases.

I agree and plead for some sanity in this discussion. There is no need
to be very creative here. We just need to follow *standard* practice -
and stick to it.

> Absence of 1 and 2 hurts Axiom publicity.

Yes, but I suppose it is only one of several such issues. I hope that
eventually if we can get more people who are willing to taking
responsibility for these administrative tasks, then we will be able to
reach a reasonable consensus acceptable to all and at the same time
improve our public image. I think that making this the responsibility
of one person is not enough.

As I said to Cliff when he decided to become an Axiom project
administrator at SourceForge: I think the purpose of requiring that
people register and that they must ask to be assigned administrator
rights is not to limit or prevent "unqualified" people from joining
(if you are here and you are interested, then you are qualified) - but
rather to help ensure that the project administrators are really
committed to taking responsibility for the job. So if anyone has an
opinion and some energy to devote to this task I would encourage you
to join.

Regards,
Bill Page.