X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C70EAB.2CE403EC@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:57:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C70EAB.2CE403EC"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: product version numbering
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:57:07 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E013D253E@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: product version numbering
thread-index: AccOnRIbXiOsgJiNT8mVBTz7VdW8vAAAEa7wAAJ9rH0AAIXNDwAAICQgAABKJm8=
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0138C33D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
From: "Paul Hammer" <paul.hammer@onstor.com>
To: "Chris Vandever" <chris.vandever@onstor.com>,
	"Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>,
	"Angela Elliott" <angela.elliott@onstor.com>,
	"Tim Gardner" <tim.gardner@onstor.com>,
	"dl-Clio" <dl-Clio@onstor.com>,
	"dl-lambo" <dl-lambo@onstor.com>
Cc: "Caeli Collins" <caeli.collins@onstor.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C70EAB.2CE403EC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agree with Chris.  Caeli and Narayan, thoughts? Perhaps release notes =
only for Clio?
=20
-Paul

________________________________

From: Chris Vandever
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 6:53 PM
To: Ken Renshaw; Angela Elliott; Paul Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; =
dl-lambo
Cc: Caeli Collins
Subject: RE: product version numbering



My understanding is that we expect most customers will bypass clio and =
upgrade directly to lambo.  In that case it would make sense to focus =
our doc efforts there for the complete doc set, and try to get a waiver =
for clio as Ken suggested.

Just my $.02.

ChrisV

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Renshaw
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:45 PM
To: Angela Elliott; Paul Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo
Cc: Caeli Collins
Subject: RE: product version numbering

Maybe not change, but an exception made this time. If we truly expect =
lambo to follow clio so closely, then we can maybe skip one of the two =
first release doc-wise and only do full sets for either clio or lambo =
and delorean, which would space the doc releases further out.

Just a comment, I'm not sure of the total impact of all of this to you =
Angie, nor the marketing requirements.

Thanks, this is indeed an important question to bring up now.

-Ken


-----Original Message-----
From: Angela Elliott
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 6:40 PM
To: Paul Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo
Cc: Caeli Collins
Subject: RE: product version numbering

For tech pubs it is important to know the version number of a release as =
soon as possible because:

- If the first and/or second digit of the version change, acc. to the =
current directives set up for tech pubs, I am required to do a full set =
of books (6 at present) + online help (2 at present) + release notes.

- If only the third and/or fourth digit in the version number changes, I =
am required to do release notes only.

- If only the fourth digit in the version number changes, no =
documentation requirements exist, except the readme files done by =
engineering.

So if the version numbers outlined by Tim are the correct ones, I would =
be required to do a full set of books + online help + release notes by =
Jan. 8, only a couple of weeks after the release of the Clio books, =
online help, and release notes . I think most of you have a good enough =
understanding of the amount of tech pubs work required to do a full =
documentation release to understand that a turn around of a couple of =
weeks from one full release with 6 books, 2 online help files, and 1 =
release note to the next is humanly impossible.

So perhaps the requirements for tech pubs need to change?

-angie


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hammer
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 5:29 PM
To: Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo
Subject: RE: product version numbering

Pretty sure this is incorrect,  Lambo is a 2.1.1 (as per Jerry's =
request) and Delorean may be 2.2 or something else, yet to be =
determined. Would not use these external versioning in the code to block =
things like upgrades, the versions numbers may very well change, that is =
why we are using the project names so that the shipping version numbers =
can change right up to the end as our business decisions change.=20

Lets decouple the versions completely from the project names. If we need =
an internal version number that should be designed into the product and =
not be forced to depend on the version string that is created during the =
packaging step (consistent with the approach you suggested for mirroring =
support during the Clio time frame). We know that the versioning issue =
has already bitten us several times due to changes in the business.

-Paul

________________________________

From: Tim Gardner
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 5:16 PM
To: dl-Clio; dl-lambo
Subject: product version numbering



There was some confusion in the dev meeting today with regard to product =
version numbering.

I confirmed the following numbering scheme with Jay:

Clio            2.1.0.0

Lambo           2.2.0.0

DeLorean        2.3.0.0

This was discussed and agreed to in the first lambo project planning =
meeting.

This is the numbering scheme that development is coding to.

Tim







------_=_NextPart_001_01C70EAB.2CE403EC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML dir=3Dltr><HEAD><TITLE>RE: product version numbering</TITLE>=0A=
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dunicode">=0A=
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>=0A=
<BODY>=0A=
<DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText12104 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Agree =
with&nbsp;Chris. &nbsp;Caeli and Narayan, thoughts? Perhaps release =
notes only for Clio?</FONT></DIV>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-Paul</FONT></DIV></DIV>=0A=
<DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>=0A=
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>=0A=
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Chris Vandever<BR><B>Sent:</B> =
Wed 11/22/2006 6:53 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Ken Renshaw; Angela Elliott; Paul =
Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo<BR><B>Cc:</B> Caeli =
Collins<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: product version =
numbering<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>=0A=
<DIV>=0A=
<P><FONT size=3D2>My understanding is that we expect most customers will =
bypass clio and upgrade directly to lambo.&nbsp; In that case it would =
make sense to focus our doc efforts there for the complete doc set, and =
try to get a waiver for clio as Ken suggested.<BR><BR>Just my =
$.02.<BR><BR>ChrisV<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ken =
Renshaw<BR>Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:45 PM<BR>To: Angela =
Elliott; Paul Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo<BR>Cc: Caeli =
Collins<BR>Subject: RE: product version numbering<BR><BR>Maybe not =
change, but an exception made this time. If we truly expect lambo to =
follow clio so closely, then we can maybe skip one of the two first =
release doc-wise and only do full sets for either clio or lambo and =
delorean, which would space the doc releases further out.<BR><BR>Just a =
comment, I'm not sure of the total impact of all of this to you Angie, =
nor the marketing requirements.<BR><BR>Thanks, this is indeed an =
important question to bring up now.<BR><BR>-Ken<BR><BR><BR>-----Original =
Message-----<BR>From: Angela Elliott<BR>Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 6:40 =
PM<BR>To: Paul Hammer; Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; dl-lambo<BR>Cc: Caeli =
Collins<BR>Subject: RE: product version numbering<BR><BR>For tech pubs =
it is important to know the version number of a release as soon as =
possible because:<BR><BR>- If the first and/or second digit of the =
version change, acc. to the current directives set up for tech pubs, I =
am required to do a full set of books (6 at present) + online help (2 at =
present) + release notes.<BR><BR>- If only the third and/or fourth digit =
in the version number changes, I am required to do release notes =
only.<BR><BR>- If only the fourth digit in the version number changes, =
no documentation requirements exist, except the readme files done by =
engineering.<BR><BR>So if the version numbers outlined by Tim are the =
correct ones, I would be required to do a full set of books + online =
help + release notes by Jan. 8, only a couple of weeks after the release =
of the Clio books, online help, and release notes . I think most of you =
have a good enough understanding of the amount of tech pubs work =
required to do a full documentation release to understand that a turn =
around of a couple of weeks from one full release with 6 books, 2 online =
help files, and 1 release note to the next is humanly =
impossible.<BR><BR>So perhaps the requirements for tech pubs need to =
change?<BR><BR>-angie<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: =
Paul Hammer<BR>Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 5:29 PM<BR>To: Tim Gardner; dl-Clio; =
dl-lambo<BR>Subject: RE: product version numbering<BR><BR>Pretty sure =
this is incorrect,&nbsp; Lambo is a 2.1.1 (as per Jerry's request) and =
Delorean may be 2.2 or something else, yet to be determined. Would not =
use these external versioning in the code to block things like upgrades, =
the versions numbers may very well change, that is why we are using the =
project names so that the shipping version numbers can change right up =
to the end as our business decisions change.&nbsp;<BR><BR>Lets decouple =
the versions completely from the project names. If we need an internal =
version number that should be designed into the product and not be =
forced to depend on the version string that is created during the =
packaging step (consistent with the approach you suggested for mirroring =
support during the Clio time frame). We know that the versioning issue =
has already bitten us several times due to changes in the =
business.<BR><BR>-Paul<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Fro=
m: Tim Gardner<BR>Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 5:16 PM<BR>To: dl-Clio; =
dl-lambo<BR>Subject: product version numbering<BR><BR><BR><BR>There was =
some confusion in the dev meeting today with regard to product version =
numbering.<BR><BR>I confirmed the following numbering scheme with =
Jay:<BR><BR>Clio&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp; =
2.1.0.0<BR><BR>Lambo&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp; =
2.2.0.0<BR><BR>DeLorean&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
2.3.0.0<BR><BR>This was discussed and agreed to in the first lambo =
project planning meeting.<BR><BR>This is the numbering scheme that =
development is coding =
to.<BR><BR>Tim<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C70EAB.2CE403EC--
