Page 1 of 1

New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:03 am
by lester
I was thinking about how the version number indicates the version of php that it is compliant with, ie. Mambo/OSM v4.x works with php 4 and Mambo/OSM will become v5 for php 5 versions.

In the UK the state TV channels are run by the BBC. The different channels are called BBC1, BB2, etc. None are called simply BBC.

Would it help to create a new brand that is differentiated from Mambo by not starting with release v4.5.2.3 or v4.6? If the php version were appended to the product name, then OSM's CMS could be xxxxx4 v1.0 and the php 5 version would be xxxxx5 v1.0.

The php number wouldn't need to be part of OSM's domain names.

Just a thought ... doing my community service.  :)

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:31 am
by brian
thats an interesting suggestion

Brian

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:47 am
by doublebeast
it should start again, after the initial release of 4.5.3 ever giving reference to php or whatever in relation. AS people will get mixed up with the source code of the older mambo project.

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:19 am
by lester
A possible benefit of this sort of naming convention: OSM can release xxxxx5 when it's ready for those eager to get their teeth into cutting edge technology, whereas xxxxx4 can still be seen as a current and supported product for as long as is necessary, ie. until a large enough proportion of hosts & users have migrated to php5, which given hardware life, could be 3 years after php5 is released.

At the moment, as soon as xxxxx v5.0 is released, xxxxx v4.5.x will be seen as an out-of-date version, whereas it will continue to be current for those whose hosts don't yet support php5.

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:20 pm
by chette
lester wrote: Would it help to create a new brand that is differentiated from Mambo by not starting with release v4.5.2.3 or v4.6? If the php version were appended to the product name, then OSM's CMS could be xxxxx4 v1.0 and the php 5 version would be xxxxx5 v1.0.
Might be a great idea (but then again, I am nobody, so my opinion doesn't count :)).

In our company, whenever we release a software, we actually follow the same convention. We call them "variants" (a variant for Win98, Win2k, WinXP, etc.), and each variant has its own versioning system.

(Offtopic: By any chance, are you also into Configuration Management?)

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:08 pm
by lester
I didn't think of the Windows naming convention. :-[
chette wrote: (Offtopic: By any chance, are you also into Configuration Management?)
Being the only full-time member of staff in a small business I wear most hats but I hadn't heard of that one before! I'm good with ideas. Someone else needs to decide which ones are good.

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:31 pm
by d2o
lester wrote: If the php version were appended to the product name, then OSM's CMS could be xxxxx4 v1.0 and the php 5 version would be xxxxx5 v1.0.
I'd second that. You could even "hide" the php version related number as Superscript in XXXXX4 and XXXXX5 for neither making it that prominent nor a naming part of the CMS's name. Other than that, you do not need to start with V1 but could continue with XXXXX4 V5.3.
Hm, maybe, looks a bit odd ;)

Re: New name - it's not about the name

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:52 pm
by keliix06
This takes us back to the days of when people had to migrate from 4.5 1.0.9 to 4.5.1. It will leave a lot of confused newbies in it's wake...