[torquedev] Versioning Issues & Development Roadmap

Ken Nielson knielson at clusterresources.com
Thu May 28 10:06:50 MDT 2009


Josh Butikofer wrote:

>There has been the proposal given on this list that we should turn 2.4.x into
>3.x and then make a new 2.4.x off of 2.3.x. This is not a bad idea, but
>some users (talked to CRI outside of the list) don't like this idea because it
>will cause confusion. TORQUE 2.4.x has been released as beta to these users. It
>has been called 2.4.x for a while. Those users expect certain features and
>capabilities to be in 2.4.x. If we get rid of 2.4, without properly releasing 
>it, and make a new 2.4 without the same feature-set it will be confusing. We 
>also agree that this would be confusing.

>An alternate proposal is that we get 2.4.x ready to release. It still needs more
>testing and polish before it is ready for general use, but we believe that it
>can be ready in several months. The refactoring that was done in 2.4
>is not bad, per-se, or too large--but it did introduce bugs, many of which have 
>been eliminatd. For sure there are more, but users have been running 2.4 for a 
>while now without major problems. There are some backwards compatibility issues 
>and changes in default behavior that cause concern. We could remove these and 
>slate them for 3.x--this would make releasing 2.4 more palatable.

I pick paragraph 2 as the way to go. The main reason is that we have set expectations for 2.4.x and users have made plans based on the information we have given them. Delaying the implementation of the new versioning scheme will be only brief and there will be time to inform everyone of the changes. 

Ken Nielson
Cluster Resources


More information about the torquedev mailing list