It has been about 2 years since we rolled the 4.9 development version into the "stable" 5.0 and started the 5.1 development cycle. Given that the majority of new installations have been on 5.1 for some time now, with the largest hold out now joining the 5.1 movement, does it seem like a good time to try to stabilize 5.1? In other words, rename it to 5.2 and start a new 5.3 development cycle?

The consequences of this change would be as follows:

1. 5.0 would officially be retired, meaning that we would stop applying patches to it. (Given that we just had a flurry of patches over the last few weeks, perhaps that might suggest to some that it isn't quite "done" yet.) 5.0 retirement wouldn't have any immediate effect on the 5.0 installed base, providing they don't need any patches, but it would certainly put pressure on them to migrate to 5.2 (which if they just completed the 5.0 migration, might not be welcome).

2. We would stop adding features to 5.1, or at least try to. After all, that's the whole point of having a "stable" release. Bug fix patches would continue (probably for quite some time).

3. New feature development would go into 5.3, which would, for a time, be particularly unstable.

The one major new development area, which might argue in favor of making the switch now is SQL. The plan is to release some kind of SQL interface within the next couple of months, targeted initially only at MySQL and at providing the flexibility to "interact" with MySQL databases. (A detailed discussion of what this means should be moved to another thread. Let it suffice here to say that the interface will allow developers to interface to such databases, but not necessarily make it easy to migrate your application logic from ISAM/RANDOM to SQL; that may or may not come later.)

On the other hand, the initial interface will be through a single SBR with a fixed parameter structure, with the SQL-related code being in a DLL or library, so that development isn't likely to destabilize existing A-Shell or application code. (But it will no doubt increase the pace of version number changes, which can be a annoyance for dealers trying to maintain a stable yet up-to-date version.)

I would second the notion to move to a 5.2 "stable" release. Not just because i prefer the stability, but this does seem like a good breaking point between minor versions of the software. It would also give Jack some latitude in working SQL into the code w/o the overhead of breaking a pseudo-live versions.

Either way... we are committed to 5.1 and perhaps this would bring a few more into the fold as well.

I can't believe it's been 2 years on 5.1!

As you know, I generally send out the most current version each month, rarely with any type of problem. It sounds like a good time for you, so I'm for it.

Sounds good to me, Happy either way as like Herman we just use the most current version plus its easier to read/try out a few things at a time from the great bible of ashdevnotes.txt than a whole release at once.

I'm in too, and anxiously waiting for the SQL developments.