X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C70EA9.B9303814@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:47:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C70EA9.B9303814"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: product version numbering
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:45:13 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E01335F70@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: product version numbering
thread-index: AccOnRIbXiOsgJiNT8mVBTz7VdW8vAAAEa7wAAJ9rH0AAIXNDw==
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E017B36C7@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E013D2535@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0D8FF7@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
From: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
To: "Angela Elliott" <angela.elliott@onstor.com>,
	"Paul Hammer" <paul.hammer@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_01C70EA9.B9303814
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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
=20
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.=20

- 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.=20

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=20


-----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
=20
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
=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.
=20
-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_01C70EA9.B9303814
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>RE: product version numbering</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>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>
From: 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;&nbsp;&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>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C70EA9.B9303814--
