The next version - 1.8 or 2.5

494 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:16:14 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Just want to draw your attention to a recent post by Ron.

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1472-vote-for-the-version.html

As it's been explained to me, the development strategy
(http://developer.joomla.org/strategy.html - based on the industry
standard) is being tweaked a bit to help people understand where in
the release cycle they are. We touched on this recently when talking
about PHP 5.3.

So, it appears the system is going to be that the major number will
increment after the previous long term release (2., 3., 4. and so on).
In terms of support, that gives us a short-short-long triplet, where
the long-term support happens at the end of a "related" triplet being
the most "mature" in the series. We already came to the conclusion
that was a good idea in that other thread if you remember. The only
tweak is that the long-term support release will always be numbered
x.5 (ok, I can run with that - marries with 1.5). The release triplet
would thus be:

x.0 -> x.1 -> x.5, where x.5 is the long termer.

x.0 is the version you'd throw a lot of "new" stuff in and you'd
presumably exercise moderation until you get to x.5.

That's all cool but because we did 1.6 the way we did, it means the
current triplet (1.6, 1.7, 1.8) is out of whack, so there appears to
be two options in going forward.

Joomla could release 1.8 (long-term) and then go into 2.0, 2.1, 2.5.
Downside to that is the LTS is x.8, not x.5.

Or, Joomla could release 2.5 next (so the triplet is 1.6, 1.7, 2.5),
and then move into the 3.x series. Downside to that is the jump from
1.7 to 2.5 seems a bit odd.

Pros and cons either way, and both approaches equally valid. So what
do you do when you cant' decide? Ask everyone else what they think :)

As for me, I think it's a coin toss :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

Joseph LeBlanc

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:31:19 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I voted 1.8. In terms of what people from outside the project think, jumping from 1.7 to 2.5 with no 2.0 would be confusing.

-Joe

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>

Matt Thomas

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:38:45 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Joseph LeBlanc <con...@jlleblanc.com> wrote:
I voted 1.8. In terms of what people from outside the project think, jumping from 1.7 to 2.5 with no 2.0 would be confusing.

+1

Best,

Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server

Jonathan Chang

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:39:30 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
+1

Alfred Vink

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:41:15 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
+1

Alfred

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: joomla-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com] Namens Joseph LeBlanc
Verzonden: maandag 1 augustus 2011 17:31
Aan: joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: The next version - 1.8 or 2.5

Chad Windnagle

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:51:35 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I have to agree - it seems 1.8 makes the most sense right now.

Regards,
Chad Windnagle
s-go Consulting, LLC
http://www.s-go.net
Office: 607-330-2574 x 103
Mobile: 607-229-6260

sid

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:55:26 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I am for next major release.


+1


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.



--
Thanks & Regards
Sudhi
Founder & Chief Architect
Hooduku Inc
Plexicloud
1.888.262.8389
http://www.hooduku.com
http://www.plexicloud.com



Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 12:20:52 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Guys, voting is down via the link in that article, not here :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

Karlos Rikáryo

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 12:29:18 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Friends see it as a need to start thinking about adding a standard template
for accessing mobile.

Seeing the experience of other companies that develop a plugin can do this
automatic recognition for the Joomla! work with a unique identity for mobile
units.

There are some extensions that do this, but I see that are quite extensive
in terms of megabytes, we could think of something as an alternative version
for Joomla! 1.8 a plugin test and mature it in version 2.x

Can I help in the design, images and css, one would think the php code and
moontools?

we debated ...

Karlos Rik�ryo
Joomla! Brazil

Alex Andreae

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 3:16:38 PM8/1/11
to Joomla! CMS Development
I already voted, but since there's no area for comments (maybe there
shouldn't be), I'll do it here :)

I voted for 2.5. Yes, it's confusing because there will be no 2.0, but
frankly, the whole 1.6-1.8 thing is confusing for a lot of reasons
already. If we do 1.8 in Jan, there won't be a 'stable' release
according to the new plan until July 2013.. 2 years from now. That's 2
years of explaining "Yes, 1.8 is the future/current stable, but 2.5
will be soon, as well as all future x.5's". And, by 2013, it might be
decided to change it again. Staring it now, while confusing
immediately, will be easier to stick with and explain for the future.

Thanks,
Alex

On Aug 1, 11:20 am, Andrew Eddie <mambob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, voting is down via the link in that article, not here :)
>
> Regards,
> Andrew Eddiehttp://learn.theartofjoomla.com- training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers
>
> On 1 August 2011 08:55, sid <sid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am for next major release.
>
> > +1
>
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Matt Thomas <m...@betweenbrain.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Joseph LeBlanc <cont...@jlleblanc.com>

Chad Windnagle

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 3:34:22 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Alfred Vink

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:06:57 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Am I missing something ?

I vote option 3 as well:

 

Next LTS : 2.0, then 2.1, 2.2,  after 18 months the next LTS: 3.0

 

Nothing else makes sense to me……

 

Alfred

 

 

 

Van: joomla-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com] Namens Chad Windnagle
Verzonden: maandag 1 augustus 2011 21:34
Aan: joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: The next version - 1.8 or 2.5

 

There is a discussion here:

Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:08:42 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
There's only 2 options if I'm not mistaken.

Kind regards,
Nick

> Am I missing something ?
>
>
>
> I vote option 3 as well:
>
>
>
> Next LTS : 2.0, then 2.1, 2.2, after 18 months the next LTS: 3.0
>
>
>

> Nothing else makes sense to me..

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .


>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>>
>> > --
>> > Thanks & Regards
>> > Sudhi
>> > Founder & Chief Architect
>> > Hooduku Inc
>> > Plexicloud
>> > 1.888.262.8389
>> >http://www.hooduku.com
>> >http://www.plexicloud.com
>>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .


>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

Alfred Vink

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:11:50 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I know,

That was the point, I would rather see an option 3......but as it is lacking
I ended up voting option 1.

Alfred

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: joomla-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com] Namens Nick Savov
Verzonden: maandag 1 augustus 2011 22:09
Aan: joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: RE: The next version - 1.8 or 2.5

Amy Stephen

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:18:08 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com, AmySt...@gmail.com
Agree Alfred.

Would like to see the project adopt Semantic Versioning http://semver.org/

x.y.z where x.0.0 is the major:: It's familiar and easy to understand

Didn't vote since neither option was a good choice, IMO. 

>> > <m....@betweenbrain.com>


> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Joseph LeBlanc

>> <con...@jlleblanc.com>


>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I voted 1.8. In terms of what people from outside the project
>> >>> think, jumping from 1.7 to 2.5 with no 2.0 would be confusing.
>>
>> >> +1
>> >> Best,
>>
>> >> Matt Thomas
>> >> betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla!
>> >> 1.5,
> 1.6,
>> >> Molajo and Nooku Server
>>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> >> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> >> To post to this group, send an email to
> joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> >> joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms...@googlegroups.com> .


>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>>
>> > --
>> > Thanks & Regards
>> > Sudhi
>> > Founder & Chief Architect
>> > Hooduku Inc
>> > Plexicloud
>> > 1.888.262.8389
>> >http://www.hooduku.com
>> >http://www.plexicloud.com
>>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
>> > "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
>> > To post to this group, send an email to
>> joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms...@googlegroups.com> .


>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cms...@googlegroups.com> .

Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:19:14 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Ah, Ok. That's what I wanted as well,

2.0 (LTS) >> 2.1 >> 2.2

However, I think the way that they are planning things, the first short
term release will be the version that implements the major changes so that
things can get fixed and that the LTS release (2 releases later) would be
more stable.

Kind regards,
Nick

Michael Babker

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:23:37 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
To me, the LTS being x.5 makes sense.

As I'm understanding the intention, development shifts gears towards a
"new" version after the release of a LTS. These STS releases are
basically the build up to a LTS (example: 1.6 feeding into 1.7 feeding
into 1.8). So saying that 2.5 is the LTS release to me means that
development has finished on version 2 of the product and development is
now focused on version 3.

According to the version strategy on the developer site
(http://developer.joomla.org/strategy.html) and docs site
(http://docs.joomla.org/Version_Strategy), major releases are the ones
that break the most backwards compatibility. If using x.0 as the LTS
release, that is the first release on the new version which breaks that
compatibility; you don't want that to be the case. Likewise, to issue a
STS as x.1, by the version strategy, it is a minor release and backwards
compatibility should be retained.

After the 1.8 release (assuming that's what it is called), the next
release will be 2.0, a short term release, a new version, and one where
major changes can happen if we have them to make. And if those changes
break backwards compatibility, by the version strategy, that should be
expected. That will build into 2.1 and 2.5, 2.5 ultimately being the
release that ends "new" development on version 2 and being the release
that is supported for the following 18 months.

My 2 cents...


Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:27:25 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Just to clarify numerically what I mean:

Current strategy:
1.8 (LTS) >> 2.0 (major changes STS) >> 2.1 (minor changes STS) >> 2.5
(minor changes LTS)

or
2.5 (LTS) >> 3.0 (major changes STS) >> 3.1 (minor changes STS) >> 3.5
(minor changes LTS)

If we went with 2.0 and used the same strategy(i.e. release major changes
during first Short term release), it wouldn't work well.
2.0 (LTS) >> 2.1 (major changes STS) >> 2.2 (minor changes STS) >> 3.0
(minor changes LTS)

So the major changes between 2.0 and 2.1 would be the issue (assuming the
same strategy is used).

Kind regards,
Nick

Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 4:29:40 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Exactly! :)

Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 8:39:56 PM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Willem Hilders

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 11:22:06 AM8/1/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
As shakespear said what's in à name / version
Both options are acceptable

Met vriendelijk groet
Willem Hilders

Andrea Tarr at Tarr Consulting

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:45:46 AM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
The versioning is set up the way you are discribing, Amy. The major number is the first digit with the minor numbers coming after that. 

Don't mistake major for long term. Major is when there are major changes. Long term is when you support that particular version for a long time. The version you are going to support for the longest is the latest, stable, version of the major.

The only thing that Joomla is suggesting different is that the are standardizing on the number that will be the long term number which we can do because the releases are timed.

Joomla verioning: x.y.z where x is the major (i.e. 1,2,3), and y is the minor (0,1,5) and z is the bug fix (0,1,2,3 etc,)

Under this scheme 1.6 would have been 2.0 and 1.7 would have been 2.1 woth the next release being 2.5.

Andy

Andrea Tarr

Sent from mobile


To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/ZE3DR1Q-YWoJ.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:48:14 AM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
On 1 August 2011 13:18, Amy Stephen <amyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree Alfred.
>
> Would like to see the project adopt Semantic Versioning http://semver.org/
>
> x.y.z where x.0.0 is the major:: It's familiar and easy to understand
>
> Didn't vote since neither option was a good choice, IMO.

Hi Amy

See Andy's reply and take a look at this video as it might help you
understand what the PLT is asking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCrbPZpek3s

The PLT is just finding the best way to on-ramp to a more rational
"triplet" of related versions. To their credit, they asked the
community to decide.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

elin

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 11:17:00 AM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Using .5 is good because it gives a little bit of wiggle room but not too much.

Also, we are all used to 1.5 being the long term release.


Elin

Steven Pignataro

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 4:03:00 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I am a littler perplexed at the decisions for the version number. I have never been able to make clear sense of it since the beginning and the decisions behind it. But I would like to figure out how this new logic falls into place?

The version numbering should follow the standard:

[major].[minor].[maintenance]

The problem comes into play that all components should work under 1.x release but not necessarily 2.x release. But instead we have these issues as in components will only work in 1.5 and not 1.0, 1.6 or 1.7. The suggested versioning is not only incorrect but also the way Joomla! handles deprecated functions. Deprecated functions should not disappear until the next major version number. This is and has always been treated as the secondary number and is hugely confusing to our customers. We get questions all the time on why won't it work on 1.6 if it is built for 1.5? These are questions that we have to answer to our clients and if we can't provide proper ugprade plans for them because deprecated calls are taken out the core in a minor update instead of a major update. It is easier to tell the client that the product may stop working in 2.0 and not 1.7.

Just my two sense on how we should be treating the verision #. I beleive that Joomla! should adopt the standards instead of making up there own. Lets start fresh and do it right.

Kindest regards,

--Steven Pignataro

Andy Miller

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 4:38:20 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I know the whole short-term/long-term release strategy was born from good intentions.  The idea as I understand it was to be able to add features and functionality in a defined manner and not be 'locked' in to a feature set for multiple years as J1.5 was.  I think this strategy is now forcing a really bizarre numbering system that is not only confusing to users and developers, but it actually harmful to the project as a whole.

let me explain:

First the standard for software versioning as I'm sure we all know is (my words/not official):

[major].[minor].[maintenance]

[major] = new features and potential non-backwards compatibility
[minor] = non backwards-compatibility-breaking features, bug fixes
[maintenance] = minor bug fixes and security updates

The ability to make advances and changes within the CMS fits in nicely into this numbering system. 1.6 could of been 2.0, 1.7 could of been 2.1 etc.  Now the LTS, the release that is the culmination of this process doesn't have to be a hard number, it's just the number that you get to before development effectively ends and you go into a stable state, ie, 1.8 would of been 2.3.  At this point if you need to make fixes or changes, they would not be 1.9, it would be 2.3.1.  You don't make your software fit your predefined version numbers, you make your version numbers fit your software.  This is the way software development works around the world, and that's why this standard numbering system works, and people understand it. Now instead of having this discussion about how do we get from 1.8 to 2.5, the numbering system could just be starting over at 2.0 and then the stable version would be wherever you end up after X amount of 'minor' updates, let's say 2.4. That latest in the 2.X line should be the stable release.

OK, all of that is moot, we have 1.5 as a stable version, 1.6 as a breaking version, with 1.7 already stepping into replace it.  Soon that will in turn be replaced by 1.8 (2.5 whatever) which again becomes a stable version.  Does this seriously sound like a good idea to you guys?

Another thing the STS and LTS releases have an effect on how the STS versions are perceived.  Basically they have become stepping-stones on the way to LTS, and with such short lifetimes, and with backwards compatibility not being 100% guaranteed, they are a liability for 3rd party developers to support.  As a 3rd party developer, we have already had to stop supporting 1.6 completely because we simply don't have the resources to develop and test everything for 3 versions of the same platform, I know others don't either, and it just leads to more confusion for users who are expecting everything to work on every version of Joomla available.  If we could just say, that we support the latest version of Joomla 1 and latest version of Joomla 2, then all would be rosy.  Users and devs would have a mutual footing when it comes to what version is the latest and greatest.

What is happening now, is your having to create diagrams to explain how your going to get to these mythical X.5 stable releases.  If there's only 2 minor revisions on the way there, that could mean you have 2.0, 2.1, 2.5.  Where's 2.3 and 2.4?  Why do you need to have a X.5 release? There is no standard that says these stable releases MUST be all the same minor version, i.e. X.5.

I know you guys are facing this already with the JED but imagine how us 3rd party devs are having to deal with this numbering system, and how we have to explain it to all the confused users out there?   

All that said I think that neither option is correct.  I would love not to be stuck with 1.8 as a major long term release number, so anything that gets Joomla post 1.5 to 2.X faster is better in my opinion.  I think it should be 1.7 and then 2.0 for the LTS (formerly 1.8).  1.7 is a STS release anyway an withing a few months it will be gone and buried.  Then after that, we should start at 3.0, and work on forward until the LTS of that version, whatever that ends up on (say 3.3 based on this current release cycle)

Well that's my 2c.

Alex Stylianos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 5:58:45 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Andy. Please think of this a little deeper.

As I understand it, the rapid development cycles were favored so that users feel this is a living project. From that, the path the version numbers have evolved have gone far beyond the main objective.

I really don't get why there shouldn't be long term support for the entire major version. Major versions denote major feature changes. If there are no major new features from 2.0 to 2.1, why is it so hard to give support for the entire 2.X line? As Andy said, the last minor version is always the better version. Giving your full dedication to the entire major version, really means that you give it to the latest minor version, whatever that is.

Each version number carries a meaning. The versioning system your propose distorts it and it makes it weird to people who won't really spend much time trying to figure out your way of thinking.

Please realise that there are people abandoning Joomla! for other CMSs, just because of these small issues that create nightmares for webmasters, developers and users. Let's make them our friends by making their life easier. These kinds of innovations only confuse and frighten people.

Even in new projects, the version numbers are carry the "Alpha" and "Beta" sub-numbering system. If you insist in your number system, then consider doing it like this:
1.6 -> 2.0 Alpha 1
1.6.1 -> 2.0 Alpha 1.1
1.7 -> 2.0 Beta 1
1.7.1 -> 2.0 Beta 1.1
1.8 -> 2.0
1.8.1 -> 2.1

The non inclusion of "Alpha" or "Beta" means that the version is stable. Simple as that, people use it all around, people understand and appreciate it.

Then, please view this whole issue as a time investment:
- From a developer perspective: Why would a developer want to invest his time/money into development for a X.5 version when s/he know this is a dying version?
- From a user perspective: Why would a user build on a version that has just ended?

If you want to keep the frequent life cycles, do it. Just keep the standards everyone is used to.

brian teeman

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:16:58 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
firstly I would never build a site on an alpha or beta (been there done that got the t-shirt and the sleepless nights) and 1.6 and 1.7 are not alpha or beta. They are finished products and not test versions of something to come along at a later date.

Your comment developer perspective
The whole point of the LTS or x.5 version is for users and developers who require a more stable (perhaps less cutting edge) release that is going to be around for a long period the x.5 is not a dieing version

Your comment user perspective
You wouldnt and no one is saying that. the x.5 does not end when the next short term release comes out

brian teeman

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:20:41 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Brad Gies

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:25:43 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Just want to say, I agree with Steven Pignataro and Andy Miller.

I've been a developer for 30 years, and software versioning has always
been [major].[minor].[maintenance] where an increment in the Major
Version means a ton of new features/changes/possible loss of backward
compatibility. An increase in the Minor version means bug fixes and
maybe very small new features, and increments in the Maintenance version
are just very minor bug fixes and security updates.

The Long Term Support Version should be just the last update to a Major
Version/Minor Version combination, whatever that number happens to be,
and if security updates are needed, the maintenance number can be
incremented as needed. So you might announce that 2.3 say is the Long
Term Support Version, but security updates would still be allowed, and
the Maintenance number would be incremented (2.3.1, 2.3.2 etc.).

Major Version Numbers and Long Term Support Versions do not normally
have a 1:1 correlation, so some major versions may or may not have a
Long Term Support Version.

My $0.02, but it is the way normal version numbering works. The current
1.5, 1.6 version numbers are very confusing. 1.5 should have 2.0 and 1.6
should have been 3.0. It would have made a lot more sense to developers
and users. I would highly recommend that the next Long Term Support
Version should be a 2.x.x (whatever it will be).


Sincerely,

Brad Gies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MaxHOMEValue.com
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
email: bg...@maxhomevalue.com
http://maxhomevalue.com http://bgies.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/sNHj_MbLBqwJ.

Alex Stylianos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:26:35 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Alpha and Beta have the characteristics of test, improve, non-stable, non-suitable for production.
STS have the exact same characteristics, except perhaps the idea of test.

Not everyone knows what STS means now, but they will, sooner or later. It is just a matter of time they realise that Alpha, Beta and STS are essentially the same.

When they realise we have been playing with them all along, they will just loose faith. Is that what we want?

Omar Ramos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:28:09 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
To reply to Andy, I really do believe we are trying to get on track with the [major].[minor].[maintenance] versioning scheme because starting with the 1.5 release, we really have not been consistent with that versioning scheme (as I mention below).

To reply to Steven (and possibly others as well), the new logic is attempting to correct things so that we can (hopefully, if the community votes for the 2.5 versioning scheme for the next release, which will be a Long Term Support release) start fresh and provide consistent future versioning expectations for the project.

When 1.5 was released, we should have incremented the major version number because going from 1.0 to 1.5 required a migration (and there were so many changes included the creation of the Joomla Framework layer), but we did not. This certainly caused a lot of confusion because one would think it would be a fairly minor upgrade, but again, this version was not a minor upgrade.

When 1.6 was released, we again should have incremented the major version number because going from 1.5 to 1.6 also required a migration, because we had the move to the Nested Categories structure, and the Access Control Lists improvements among a whole host of other changes (the Language File INI format conversion, addition of JForm which required XML changes for extensions, and rewriting the framework layer to be properly PHP 5 object oriented code for example).

Version 1.7 was the first minor version number release I think for the project in recent memory where a date was set for release, and the release was made (give or take a few days), AND (this is important) the release didn't cause any real major changes that would require large amounts of time for developers to add compatibility or which required a migration (you can simply upgrade to 1.7). 

Aside from the actual version number, which caused some issues with 3rd Party Developers who were targeting the 1.6 release specifically (and the associated Platform faux pas where the version file was moved to a different location), I believe the move to make 1.6 extensions compatible with 1.7 has been fairly smooth (3rd party developers can certainly comment on the other issues they've encountered with making their 1.6 extensions compatible with 1.7 if they wish that I'm not aware of).

So the next version of Joomla, whether that is 1.8 or 2.5, will follow the same path as 1.7...no major backwards compatibility changes will be introduced from the previous related versions (1.6 and 1.7), but new features and bug fixes can definitely make it in because we want it to be as easy as possible for users to move to the next version which will be a Long Term Support release.

The x.5 scheme is not necessarily standard, but after it was explained to me I can now see that we did set a precedent with 1.5 since it was the last Long Term Support release that the project has made, and we're just choosing to continue using that as a standard so that people can instantly look at the version and know it is a long term release (you can imagine that without that standard, perhaps we'd have a 3.3 in one cycle as an LTS, and a 4.4 as an LTS...in the future you wouldn't be able to say for certain that either is an LTS release without looking into it further, either on the Joomla Website or elsewhere). So I can definitely see how in the future the x.5 standard can be helpful in knowing what is Long Term Support and what is not at a glance.

It's a tough decision either way (confusion will occur no matter what, because with 1.8 we'll then have to explain why 1.8 is the only non x.5 Long Term Support release in the future and if 2.5 is chosen by the community we'll have to explain to them in January that 2.5 is really just a minor upgrade, aside from the version number, from 1.7, and we're simply setting things up to be consistent for our future releases, which are all going to occur on this new 6-month cycle).

The PLT had a difficult time coming to a decision on it considering all of the history above, and knowing the potential confusion that is going to occur either way, and that's exactly why this is up for vote by the community at this time (we did also consider the 3rd option mentioned, which would have 2.0.0 as a Long Term Support release, which is originally what I thought would be logical as well, but it makes sense that this shouldn't be the LTS release because it would not be the most stable version of that series...2.1.x would be more stable, etc. so it made sense to me after that point that the LTS release should have a minor version > 0).

I hope this does some to illustrate some of the thought process we went through during the PLT Summit and most of us were comfortable with going either way so it's now up to the community to decide what they feel they are comfortable with.

To reply to Alex Stylianos, I think you cannot use the 1.x line as the best example of long term support since the 1.6/1.7 releases confuse the situation. The reason for this is that we introduced huge backwards compatibility breaking changes between 1.0 and 1.5 and 1.5 and 1.6. In the future, these types of changes will not occur within a major version number. This means that ideally, users can expect to upgrade to the next minor version within a major release simply and easily with no major headaches, which hasn't been the case in the past. If we can achieve that goal, then users should always be running the latest minor version for their major release. To our credit, the alpha/beta numbering system you mentioned was also discussed as well, but I think the majority of us felt that would be even more confusing, especially considering we are already using the alpha and beta monikers during each version's development.

To reply to Brian...I agree with all 3 of your points.

To reply to Brad...I agree with your points as well, with my above comments (too bad I'm writing too much and 3, no 4, replies have come in as I've been writing this :-).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/V4CNfzxkMp0J.

brian teeman

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:30:36 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Sorry but i have to disagree that sts = alpha or beta

Ron Severdia

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:30:50 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Andy, how is the versioning strategy different than "major.minor.maintenance"? 

Keep in mind that developers should consider supporting a 2.x or 3.x series of releases instead of only 2.1 or 2.5. Those minor point numbers have meant more with 1.5 and 1.6 than they will in the future with the new system. It's likely that early adopters will pounce on the x.0 releases right when they come out, but others will wait until a later version in the series. They are *not* stepping stones to the x.5 release in the sense they are not for public consumption. They are full, legit releases in the 6-month cycle. However, the changes in the 2.x series (for example) will be consistent in order to maintain compatibility. The 1.5/1.6/1.7 versions broke the mold of this system, but that will be more consistent going forward.

All of this is "mythical" until it happens. There may never be a x.3 or x.4 release, but who knows. Yet, there's room to have whatever version numbers are necessary before or after either a major release or a LTS release. Major features will be introduced in the x.0 releases. Minor changes and maintenance/security stuff will be added to the minor releases. When that version is mature as it can be, it's deemed a x.5 release and is supported long term.

Ron Severdia

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:35:20 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
STS releases absolutely DO NOT have the qualities/characteristics of alpha/beta software. They are full and tested releases like any other. There will probably be alpha/beta releases of major version numbers, but those will be determined by each release and cycle and are not scheduled. Don't confuse a 2.1 release being "the most immature of the series" with "beta" software.

Mike Carson

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:40:38 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I absolutely must agree with Andy Miller on this version numbering format. I believe the current option on the table are just purely a joke and weren't thought through. I wasn't going to vote for either option because they just aren't options in my opinion.

C'mon people, use the KISS theory and keep this simple.
Major versions (long term releases) should be 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc.
Minor releases (every 6 months) could be listed as 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc
Maintenance releases could simply be 2.0.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 etc


What has been proposed for voting is just not practical. This isn't rocket science. Just because two choices have been preoposed doesn't mean that those are the only options. I truely think this one needs to get pushed back and thought through a little more.
I also follow the versioning sequence of the Joomla versions with my own extensions as this does lessen the confusion for my users and customers. Changing it would cause mass confusion.

Keep it simple. If you need a video to explain it, then it's not the right solution. Seriously!

<rant_off>



Alex Stylianos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 6:55:02 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I understand what you are telling me, but a non-Joomla person will process it in his mind like a beta, because he knows what betas are, but he has never heard of X.5 versions. I am asking you to see things from a non guru perpective.

And we should also remember what happened until now. The state of 1.6 and 1.7 was not exactly stable. I hope you will agree on that. Recent history is not favoring you.

Andy Miller

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:08:13 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
As I said in my original post, STS and LTS releases while great in concept, has essentially brought us to where we are today.  I think that users in general do not understand the purpose or benefits of an STS or LTS release.  There are two types of users, those that care about stability and those that care about cutting edge.  In most software there's a release version and a beta version to address these two types of users.  In browsers for example firefox and chrome, there are even more 'channels' such as stable, beta, dev, nightly.  However these people that want cutting edge functionality know full well that these are not officially supported and can break stuff, use at your own discretion, that sort of thing.

The whole concept of STS is very confusing to users because it's not really a minor release.  A minor release is automatically replaced by the next minor release, there's no concept of a minor release living on past the next minor release.  This is what we are seeing in the current release strategy.  Take 1.6.6 for example, this was released after 1.7.0, and the upgrade path is from 1.6.5 to 1.7.0.  Then 1.6.6 was released as a security release, but who is supposed to use this? When the upgrade path is clearly from 1.6.5 to 1.7.0  This 1.6.6 release was only released to fit into the STS and LTS strategy, it serves no other use except to produce confusion.

This really is a tangent into another conversation where the merits of the the whole LTS strategy is discussed, and frankly my personal opinion differs from the current Joomla direction.  That is neither here nor there, and is not pertinent to this 'version number' conversation.

Anyway back to the topic at hand.  What happens if we have released a 2.4 version and have designated 2.5 to be the LTS.  Then there is a bug discovered that requires a breaking change update.  This would mean that we need to release 2.5 but we can't because 2.5 means LTS!  This I feel is one of the many issues with 'hard-coding' a X.5 designation on LTS versions.  For this reason as well as the jump from 1.7 to 2.5 which from a user perspective, its very arbitrary, I think that the 2.5 version number option is non-starter.

That leaves the 1.8 option, with 2.0 being the next major release.  This is also not ideal because it means that 1.5 and 1.8 and then 2.whatever will all be compatibility breaking versions.  This breaks the numbering system.  The one thing going for this is that within a year 1.5 'should' be going away so we can quietly forget that ever was a major revision with breaking changes.

I propose that 2.0 be replacement for 1.8.  This means that 1.5, 2.0 and 3.X are all compatibility breaking and that fits in nicely with the numbering system.  This does rely on the fact that LTS' don't have to be X.5 releases, but I've made my case for that already.  This also has the added benefit of making the next 'new' version of Joomla 3.0, which sounds much more modern and forward thinking than 2.0 :)

So long story short, i like 2.0 better, but without that option (as it seems you are all quite stuck on this X.5 LTS release stuff) my vote is grudgingly for 1.8.  

Daniel Holmes

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:09:32 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

I understand where you are coming from Alex but I dare say people who download the CMS are people who know how to install Joomla on a web sever.

I am quite sure those people deal with other programs that use the version scheme.

None the less, I do see your point. I know that 2.0 will be stable but not as stable as 2.5.

None the less, there is nothing wrong with common users only downloading x.5 versions because those users are probably best off with the version that lasts a long time anyway.

As far as 1.6 and 1.7 not being entirely stable in some respects that's true but this new version scheme I think is intending to fix that.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/SONrnEfTkuAJ.

Andy Miller

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:12:39 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I agree perhaps alpha and beta do not give the correct amount of credit and level of stability, but perhaps RC is a better term?  I won't get into the nitty gritty but even with 1.7 there are still many major bugs that are not fixed.  Also these are transient versions and frankly they don't follow the numbering system well because there are changes that can cause backwards compatibility issues as we've already seen.  Granted these are somewhat obscure and lower-level framework type things, but they do effect 3rd parties, and they do exist.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:29:41 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
On 2 August 2011 16:08, Andy Miller <an...@rockettheme.com> wrote:
> The whole concept of STS is very confusing to users because it's not really
> a minor release.  A minor release is automatically replaced by the next
> minor release, there's no concept of a minor release living on past the next
> minor release.  This is what we are seeing in the current release strategy.

Actually, PHP has done this a couple of times now with security
releases. Note that end-of-life is not covered in the version
numbering standards (which Joomla follows). That's for the developer
to decide.

>  Take 1.6.6 for example, this was released after 1.7.0, and the upgrade path
> is from 1.6.5 to 1.7.0.  Then 1.6.6 was released as a security release, but
> who is supposed to use this? When the upgrade path is clearly from 1.6.5 to
> 1.7.0
> This 1.6.6 release was only released to fit into the STS and LTS
> strategy, it serves no other use except to produce confusion.

Actually, the "one month overlap" has been advised heavily for the
better part of a year now to account for this very situation where
people have not quite had time to upgrade to 1.7. The JBS monitored
the release of 1.7 closely and Omar mentioned some of the glitches
that occurred. The 1.6.6 patch was released because they knew that
some people were just waiting on patches from custom extension
developers.

The alternative was that everyone upgraded to 1.7.0 a couple of days
*after* its release but *before* extension developers could fix any
unforeseen glitches. I'm sure you've release templates with little
things you've missed ;)

QED - the system worked perfectly :)

> Anyway back to the topic at hand.  What happens if we have released a 2.4
> version and have designated 2.5 to be the LTS.  Then there is a bug
> discovered that requires a breaking change update.  This would mean that we
> need to release 2.5 but we can't because 2.5 means LTS!  This I feel is one
> of the many issues with 'hard-coding' a X.5 designation on LTS versions.

This is an unlikely scenario. 2.4 is 3 cycles from 2.1 which is 18
months - that's 3 years or so from now (if my math is right).

>  For this reason as well as the jump from 1.7 to 2.5 which from a user
> perspective, its very arbitrary, I think that the 2.5 version number option
> is non-starter.
> That leaves the 1.8 option, with 2.0 being the next major release.  This is
> also not ideal because it means that 1.5 and 1.8 and then 2.whatever will
> all be compatibility breaking versions.

No, you misunderstand. If 1.8 is the next version, 2.0 is the
"breaking" version. If 2.5, 3.0 is the "breaking" version. A major
release by everyone's standard, including Joomla's, is X.0 and that
breaks things (potentially - but it doesn't always have to).

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

Ron Severdia

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:54:18 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:08:13 PM UTC-7, Andy Miller wrote:
As I said in my original post, STS and LTS releases while great in concept, has essentially brought us to where we are today.  I think that users in general do not understand the purpose or benefits of an STS or LTS release.  There are two types of users, those that care about stability and those that care about cutting edge.  In most software there's a release version and a beta version to address these two types of users.  In browsers for example firefox and chrome, there are even more 'channels' such as stable, beta, dev, nightly.  However these people that want cutting edge functionality know full well that these are not officially supported and can break stuff, use at your own discretion, that sort of thing.

I agree and disagree. I think you're missing a third class of people that want cutting edge functionality without running an alpha or beta. Or maybe your second category of users is divided up into two.
 

On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:08:13 PM UTC-7, Andy Miller wrote:

What happens if we have released a 2.4 version and have designated 2.5 to be the LTS.  Then there is a bug discovered that requires a breaking change update.  This would mean that we need to release 2.5 but we can't because 2.5 means LTS!  This I feel is one of the many issues with 'hard-coding' a X.5 designation on LTS versions.  For this reason as well as the jump from 1.7 to 2.5 which from a user perspective, its very arbitrary, I think that the 2.5 version number option is non-starter.

If there's a serious bug or security issue, that doesn't mean 2.5 is the end of the line and can't be updated just because it's a LTS release. Quite the contrary. There will be 2.5.1, 2.5.2, etc. So it's better to think of x.5.x as the LTS release.

The jump to 2.5 would indicate the January 2012 is a long-term release. Not sure why the concept of x.5 being the LTS release in a series is "arbitrary" because it's very deliberate. It can't be x.0 for all the reasons discussed over the past year.

Ron Severdia

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 7:56:47 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:12:39 PM UTC-7, Andy Miller wrote:
I agree perhaps alpha and beta do not give the correct amount of credit and level of stability, but perhaps RC is a better term?

No, it doesn't. It's still pre-GA (or GM for old-timers :) ).
 
 I won't get into the nitty gritty but even with 1.7 there are still many major bugs that are not fixed.  Also these are transient versions and frankly they don't follow the numbering system well because there are changes that can cause backwards compatibility issues as we've already seen.  Granted these are somewhat obscure and lower-level framework type things, but they do effect 3rd parties, and they do exist.

No doubt that the current system is messy and that's what we hope to fix. :)

Steve

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 8:04:51 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
First of all, I really respect the work done by the PLT. I know they busted their butts to get 1.7 out and many immediately flew directly to San Jose to keep working.

I disagree with them on this point however.

After a lot of hard work by the 1.7 launch team, I feel that people have started to become more confident about the 1.5 > 1.6 > 1.7 path. We've worked really, really hard to remove confusion and so have many PLT members.

However, my guess is that this new system will just cause that confusion to come flooding back.

Personally, I'm finally getting my head around out the new version numbers. It does seem to make some sense from the developer perspective. However, I had to watch the video (thanks Sandy and Ron), re-read the blog post several times and had the advantage of emailing with some of the PLT. Several times I heard responses like the one from Andrew above, "No, you misunderstand". They were right: I didn't.

Knowing full well, the struggles we went through to explain 1.5 > 1.6 > 1.7 to people, I just cringe at the thought of trying to explain these new numbers to them. Most end-users won't have the resources and time that I had to wrap their head around this system. They just won't: 99% of users don't have the time or inclination to spend a day or more wrapping their heads around version numbers. They'll get confused, turn their heads and go elsewhere.

The current two options are for developers with a deep understanding of our new dev cycle.

For end-users (for the people we build the software for), the two options are too complicated. Flat out: they are too complicated.

FWIW, Drupal is making the same mistake at the moment: version numbers built for devs, not users (try and explain Drupal 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 to normal people).

If anyone disagrees with that, I propose a usability test: I'll happily work with them to round up a large group of ordinary Joomla users and sit down and explain these version numbers too them. We'll see how our target audience really reacts. I'd love to be wrong. I suspect I'm not.

Mark Dexter

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 8:33:11 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I want to emphasize one important point about the 6-month release cycle. We rely on volunteer coders to contribute new features to Joomla. It kills motivation in my opinion if someone has to wait 12-18 months before they can see their feature released. One of the major reasons to shorten the cycle was to shorten time between coding a new feature and seeing it in action. Also, if a feature misses a cut-off date, it is only a few months until the next one. So we hope the 6-month cycle makes it more attractive to prospective code contributors.

If we were purely a developer oriented project, we could just have short release cycles and not worry about LTS releases. However, we recognize that some / many / (most?) users might prefer less frequent updates. Hence the dual STS / LTS releases.

As far as stability, I believe we are moving rapidly in the right direction. Version 1.6 was more stable than I expected, given the somewhat chaotic way it was developed early on. Version 1.7 has over 500 bugs fixed (since 1.6.0) and I think is becoming comparable to 1.5.23 in stability.

Of course, anyone who is concerned about the stability of 1.7 is welcome to code or test some bug fixes to make it that much better.

Thanks. Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/Q0iuNGyScA0J.

Ron Severdia

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 8:36:38 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com

Personally, I'm finally getting my head around out the new version numbers. It does seem to make some sense from the developer perspective. However, I had to watch the video (thanks Sandy and Ron), re-read the blog post several times and had the advantage of emailing with some of the PLT. Several times I heard responses like the one from Andrew above, "No, you misunderstand". They were right: I didn't.

Glad to hear it's starting to make at least some sense. Believe me, it was a topic of great discussion because there are quite a few things the version strategy is solving. It's a little bit of a stretch for some to adjust their frame of reference from the "old" scheme. But if you never learned that, you would have no problem with the "new" one. Hopefully with time, it will make better sense to those who have trouble wrapping their head around it. 

Knowing full well, the struggles we went through to explain 1.5 > 1.6 > 1.7 to people, I just cringe at the thought of trying to explain these new numbers to them. Most end-users won't have the resources and time that I had to wrap their head around this system. They just won't: 99% of users don't have the time or inclination to spend a day or more wrapping their heads around version numbers. They'll get confused, turn their heads and go elsewhere.

Go elsewhere because they can't understand that 2.0 is major new features and 2.5 is LTS? Or that 2.1 is a minor upgrade from 2.0? That's just plain silly.

The current two options are for developers with a deep understanding of our new dev cycle.

No, the current two options are for those who have a basic understanding of the dev cycle and version strategy and also want to express their opinion on what the "bridge version" should be called.
 

For end-users (for the people we build the software for), the two options are too complicated. Flat out: they are too complicated.

I flat out disagree. 
 

FWIW, Drupal is making the same mistake at the moment: version numbers built for devs, not users (try and explain Drupal 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 to normal people).

It's OK that you think it's a mistake, but we couldn't respectfully disagree more. Our versioning takes both into consideration. It *was* developer-focused and that's what brought us to where we are today with the 1.5/1.6/1.7 confusion. At least "average" users will know two things

1) x.0 releases are major features/functionality

2) x.5 releases are LTS releases

All other releases are STS and indicate minor maintenance & security fixes. It's that simple.

If anyone disagrees with that, I propose a usability test: I'll happily work with them to round up a large group of ordinary Joomla users and sit down and explain these version numbers too them. We'll see how our target audience really reacts. I'd love to be wrong. I suspect I'm not.

I've spoken to a number of people personally about this and I know others on the team have as well in order to get feedback before arriving at a decision. But feel free. I fully support you conducting a focus group (a usability test is something different). If you can record a video in short order of a something that's unbiased and validates your point, I will personally lobby to reopen the discussion in light of such strong evidence supporting a different approach.

 

elin

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 9:45:55 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I think we all have to understand that we're seeing the sausage of branding being done and we're focusing a little to much on math and logic and not enough on building on success. Personally I'm for getting it done now so we continue with the amazing branding that Joomla 1.5 has as a mature product.

I would think of it this way.

3.0 Production/Stable --- Ready to use for production sites
3.1 General Availability
3.5 Mature

Really, people who had 1.6 sites right away were early adopters and forward looking site developers who had already made the decision that their clients really needed ACL. In a way they are like the many of us who were running 1.5 b2 and rc sites for  despite the fact that we all know that you shouldn't use them for production. 
Really by 3 months after 1.6 was out it was outstripping 1.5 for new installs and there are thousands of extensions.  In January we'll have whatever polishing people end up doing and I think it will be like 1.5, really almost never having to be touched except for fixing the css for iPads.

What I'd like to spend a lot more time hearing about is what people the people on this list are planning to proposed for merging into the CMS code base on January 20, 2012 and what they are writing for the platform right now to prepare for that.

Elin

Alex Stylianos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:15:17 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
The topic of this discussion is about the version number system. Lets not loose focus.

The objection by several people is all about building confidence with the end users. As Mark Dexter said before, there will be features on the way, but that is a subject for another discussion.

The question is why would people see all versions equally good, when Joomla! itself sees only specific versions as good ones (I am avoiding "stable") aka LTS, and if it is reasonable to name the good version as 5. I know you will object to the term "good" but the intuitive message for simple users will most probably be that.

elin

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:22:58 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
No, the point was not to talk about features in this thread, it was to stop bike shedding.

Which ubuntu do you have installed? "Most users" i don't think worry about it as much as you think, they just install what is current aka what is on the top at the download page or in their host's one click install. Professional site developers who either do many many sites or  who do large scale bespoke development for enterprise worry about being able to count on a stable API ad suite of extensions they can install and not have to worry about compatibility with. They are the only ones that the LTS really makes sense for to be honest. Just the same as those enterprise users are the only ones still using IE 1.6 and 1.7.

Elin


Mark Dexter

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:28:09 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
No one in the project that I know of thinks of 1.6 or 1.7 as a "bad" version. There have been numerous questions about which one to install for a specific project, and mostly it came down to what extensions had been ported. I think we have reached or are reaching the "tipping point" for 1.7 to be used in a majority of new installs. We have over 2200 1.6/1.7 extensions now. I wasn't around, but I understand it took about a year for 1.5 to overtake 1.0.

In the spirit of fun, and hopefully to close out this discussion, I'm attaching a profile of the typical STS and LTS user. Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/_KuRO26nJ-cJ.
evel.jpg
Iowa American Gothic.jpg

Steven Pignataro

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:30:49 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I think it is safe to say that the biggest thing that many of us do not want to have issues with is the development cycle with deprecated code.

If i develop something in 2.0.1 it should continue to work in 2.9.1 and if it doesn't it should be just a small tweak to make it work. Not something where we have to completely rewrite our installation packages and other things to make work with a new version (ie. 1.5 -> 1.6).

Truth be told our customers are confused by the current version numbering because we build something in 1.5 they assume that it should continue to work in 1.6 and 1.7. When in fact this is not true. This is what my point was earlier on in this tread. The developers, contributors need to be understanding that making MAJOR changes require it to be part of a new MAJOR branch instead of making it part of a minor update. Breaking stuff does nothing but make developer angry, customers confused, and users worried that they will not be able to have a update that is going to work properly.

If this is the re-assurance that is to be given to developers and Joomla! user then I don't think there is much of a problem with the version number - but the development behind it needs to follow it as well.

Kindest regards,

--Steven Pignataro


Alex Stylianos

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 10:42:04 PM8/2/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
If you want to compare Joomla! with Ubuntu, you must imagine yourself having to update 50 servers whenever a new kernel update is out, each having different extensions installed where each extension may or may not work with the new kernel version.

I have tried to share my anxiety about this new decision. Please don't take me wrong if I have strong opinions. I am doing this because this is how I think I can help us all. I had the same strong opinions in your previous decisions and I was justified because I have the feeling I know better the average users than you. Of course I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Angel Lin

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 10:32:45 AM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I do I agree with you Steven.

Ange

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/rKgosMsXLvIJ.

To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.



--
Saludos,

Angel Lin Lee

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 11:05:46 AM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Steven

I think the other side to your point is the developers need to invest
time in keeping up with Joomla developer news. The developer strategy
has been around for the better part of a year now and was even put out
for public comment. I can understand the busy-ness of the larger
businesses, but, just as those maintaining the CMS or the Platform
have the responsibility to get information out in a timely fashion,
it's also the responsibility of the developer community to speak up at
the appropriate time - not the better part of a year after public
comment was called for.

Regarding backward compatibility, that is very important and the whole
point of planning to increment the "major" version at predictable
times is to make the transitions easier. From the platform point of
view, our current thinking is that deprecated features will stay in
the API for at least 12 months. To the end, there is a large volume
of code that will become deprecated in version 12.1 of the platform.
This is the version that will most likely be used in the next major
version of Joomla (2.0 or 3.0). The next LTS of Joomla (1.8 or 2.5)
will still include all code currently marked as deprecated so that
should address your concerns (probably using version 11.3 or 11.4 of
the platform).

However, you as a developer have the responsibility of getting off
that deprecated API sooner, rather than later, because we don't want
to be having another "you never told us" conversation like this when
2.0/3.0 comes out. To help developers out, we are incorporating
logging of deprecated function usage. I'm sure the CMS and Platform
teams would also appreciate assistance from the developer community to
actually convert the core code, which is using deprecated API itself.

Please keep an eye on the leadership blogs for more information on
that in the coming months.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

Steven Pignataro

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 11:16:35 AM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Andrew,

As I had mentioned. as long as things are properly noted, documented then I am in favor of the new version numbering (not that I haven't been). My concern is just the past development cycle have been difficult to communicate to our clients. As developers we have are pretty on top of it. As for our clients, they are not and I can't blame them for the confusion. I look forward to the updated version numbering to remedy these types of issue.

Kindest regards,

Mark Dexter

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 11:21:13 AM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I believe that with the passage of time and with the pattern established, this issue will take care of itself -- as long as we stick to a consistent release cycle and don't change anything for a while. And as long as we actually follow through and do it! Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/voVu4v0Li1oJ.

Andrew Eddie

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 11:38:51 AM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Stephen.

I think everyone is in agreement that the current numbering is
confusing, mainly because it didn't follow the convention. If 1.6 had
been reassigned to 2.0, I think things would have been a lot better.
All that's happening now is to determine the best way to get "back on
track" with major releases. To that end, the question being put is
which is the less confusing way to transition to using the major
version increment more effectively. The project has already
demonstrated success with the first tick of the new release cycle, so
I don't see any reason to doubt it won't continue to work (because the
feature-based release cycle most certainly didn't).

Personally, I think developer shops will or should probably err on the
1.8 side so they can make "_j16plus" packages. Then they can
transition to "_j2" with the release of 2.0. The alternative is they
have "_j16plus" for 1.6 and 1.7 and then "_j25" for the LTS then "_j3"
for the next major release. Even though I prefer to see the ".5"
system now, it's probably better to go the other way to spare the
extension developers a bit of work, and their users/customers a bit of
confusion.

It also make a bit better sense to go 1.8 for those developers doing
1.5-1.7 multi-version packages.

That's the way I'd be lobbying anyway if I was in that position :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - training videos for Joomla 1.6 developers

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/voVu4v0Li1oJ.

JM Simonet

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 12:29:54 PM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
I am personnaly in favor of the use of 1.8 for the next mature/Long
Time Release
It will be easier to explain to the users as a logical suite to 1.6->1.7->1.8
Then I guess it's just a matter of also explaining that we change the
way we do it from thereafter. I.e. 2.0, 2.1 =>2.5 using the wording
"mature" for 2.5

Yes, it was a mistake to use 1.6 in the first place, but we now have
to deal with it the best we can.
My 2 cents of Euro

JM


--
>Please keep the Subject wording in your answers
This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not
disclose or use the information contained in this e-mail if you are
not the
intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marie Simonet / infograf768
Joomla Leadership Team - Production Working group
Joomla! Translation Coordination Team

Nick Savov

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 3:06:35 PM8/3/11
to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
Actually the current development strategy is very well though out! The
more I think about it, the more I realize it. It provides a lot more
stability for those that want to use a very stable Joomla version for a
longer time.

2.x.x (or 3.x.x) would be available for a long time (2 and a half years)
2.1.x is a direct upgrade of 2.0.x. 2.5.x is a direct upgrade of 2.1.x
2.5.x is supported for a year and a half. 2.0.x and 2.1.x are both
supported for 6 months each.

So in the current development strategy, it's not that 2.x.x is not a long
term release, it is. The best part about it is that the most stable
version (less buggy) is supported for a year and a half. It really
doesn't matter that the other ones are only supported for 6 months because
they result in direct upgrades (not migrations).

This is a great strategy and well thought out!

Also, perhaps these would help:
https://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms/msg/b47001efaa716388
https://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms/msg/ecec3fe63365c587

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-dev-cms/-/xHkZy5SRskEJ.

Mark Dexter

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 3:10:54 PM8/3/11