[VOTE] should we release eml-2.0.0 now?

[Matt Jones]

Hey Tim,

I agree with your and Scott's points about future compatibility.  My 
point was that we should be striving for some stability and we should 
make every effort to not break things.  This may mean some tradeoffs in 
functionality, but it will benefit community adoption.  You're right 
about the version numbers: the system we've been using is a three stage 
system, x.y.z, where z is for minor bug fixes, y is for compatible 
feature changes, and x is for major revisions introducing 
incompatibilities.  I suggest we stick with 2.x.x revisions, if any, for 
the next year and try to focus on building community adoption.  Then 
we'll have a much clearer idea of what changes are needed in practice 
rather than in theory.

Matt

Tim Bergsma wrote:
> I approve.
> 
> For my information, please clarify:  I thought the meaning of the final
> 2.0 release was that any 2.x.x version of EML would be back-compatible
> with 2.0.0.  Your email appears to suggest that any x.x.x version will
> be back-compatible with 2.0.0.  Which is true, and what is the
> development convention, if any, for transition to a non-backward
> compatible version?
> 
> Matt Jones wrote:
> 
>>CALL FOR VOTES:
>>---------------
>>I, as an EML Project member, agree that we should release the current
>>set of files from CVS that are tagged RELEASE_EML_2_0_0 as the final EML
>>2.0.0 version.  This includes agreement that we will make every possible
>>effort to maintain backwards compatibility with this release from this
>>point forward (i.e., any document that is valid for EML 2.0.0 would also
>>be valid for any new versions of EML that might be created in the future).
>>
>>Vote one of:
>>------------
>>    Approve: I understand and agree with the release proposal
>>    Neutral: I am neutral
>>Disapprove: I block this from occurring (explanation required)
>>
>>Deadline:
>>---------
>>Wed., December 11, 2003
>>
>>Project member      Vote
>>---------------     ---------
>>Tim Bergsma
>>Chad Berkley
>>David Blankman
>>Matthew Brooke
>>James Brunt
>>Scott Chapal
>>Corinna Gries
>>Daniel Higgins
>>Matthew Jones       approve
>>Chris Jones
>>Peter McCartney
>>Ken Ramsey
>>Mark Schildhauer
>>
>>I will collate the results after Wednesday.  We need a quorum (9 voters)
>>and of those who cast a vote, at least 2/3 approval and no disapprove
>>votes.  Looking forward to hearing your opinions...
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>eml-dev mailing list
>>eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
>>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev
> 
> 


-- 
*******************************************************************
Matt Jones                                    jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/    Fax: 425-920-2439   Ph: 907-789-0496
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)

Interested in ecological informatics? http://www.ecoinformatics.org
*******************************************************************