Forum OpenACS Q&A: OpenACS 4.x - what should "x" be?

In the course of some private e-mail discussion, the suggestion was
made to call our first release "OpenACS 4.4" or "OpenACS 4.5".  I'm
more or less convinced that "> 4.2" makes sense but thought I'd post
here to get some feedback.

The rationale as presented to me is that

1. We've included elements from what would've been aD's ACS 4.3
release if they'd not dropped Tcl support (workflow, for instance), so
"4.2" is in reality inaccurate.

2. Along with bug fixes, we've added considerable functionality.
Dual-RDBMS support for starters (it's hard to underestimate that item,
given that it's eaten programmer-months of volunteer time!).  We've
added some new packages (ecommerce3, RSS, cronjob, a new search package
which at the moment is PG-only, etc).  A step ahead of what would've
been aD's ACS 4.3, in other words.

3. 4.4 vs. 4.5 - "4.5 is a nice round number, why not just start there?"

I think the argument for releasing as OpenACS 4.4 or OpenACS 4.5 (as
opposed to 4.2 or 4.3) is quite reasonable.  In regard to 4.4 or 4.5 I
don't really care.  Our next release will include a major cleanup and
dotLRN elements (in particular the new portal pacakge) - if we clean
up the core to the point where we really like it calling it "5.0"
seems likely (in part to make it clear that an upgrade from 4.x->5.0
likely will involve running some heavy-duty upgrade scripts, more work
than one would expect from a "+0.1" release).

So chime in, folks.  If necessary we could run another poll but I'm
hopeful it's not necessary.

I bet a poll would work better. I tried to post my answer I got:

"We had a problem processing your entry: There are already 1 messages in the database with the same subject line and body. Perhaps you already posted this? Here are the messages:
2002-02-22 12:02:17-05 by C. R. Oldham (cro@nca.asu.edu) If you are sure that you also want to post this message, then back up and change at least one character in the subject or message area, then resubmit.

So I choose 4.5

-Bob

One thing to keep in mind is the presumably upcoming migration to Oracle9i compatibility.  This is going to present a major break in continuity, as there will be almost no direct compatibility between the two versions.  Granted, migrating will be relatively easy, but not quite automatic, so all the APMs will have to change.  We've decided to re-brand the version we've put out for 9i as M(odified)ACS, so that there will be no confusion about interoperability.  It will hopefully help us keep clear what should work with what.

OpenACS will also run into the same problem at some point.  Though that might take place at the 5.0 marker, so it'd be easier to make a compatibility break.

All that said, I'd probably go with 4.3 or 4.4.  I think the move from ACS to OpenACS is the biggest differentiator, and should be upheld in its own right.  Making a big numeric jump for a characteristically differenct product seems too much like aD's Java 4.6 fiasco.  So I'd say understate the version leap, but emphasize the essential technology leap in going from ACS Classic to OpenACS.

Using the scripts we've provided, it shouldn't be hard to "hack" even customized packages.

No, but it won't be totally automated.  My thinking is that folks would expect a "+0.1" release to truly be incremental, i.e. offer a painless upgrade path, that's all.  Calling the next version "5.0" would make it clear that we're talking about a fairly major upgrade.

But that's kinda offtopic at the moment, something to worry about in a few months, not now.