Thoughts on Version Numbering

This page is a "placeholder" for all suggestions around renumbering our DSpace releases. Our current version numbering convention is documented in our Release Procedure at DSpace Numbering Convention

Overview - Why is this even being discussed?

In recent and past Developer Meetings, the topic always comes up: "I'd like to suggest we change our DSpace version numbering from the 1.x.x (e.g. 1.6.0, 1.6.1, 1.7.0, etc.) numbering we currently use." (See DSpace Numbering Convention, for more info on our current version numbering convention)

Usually this comes out of a few perceived issues with our current numbering sequence (whether or not these are just misperceptions, or are actual issues is up for constant debate):

1. All the "baggage" around the idea of DSpace 2.0, and wanting to avoid that in the future. The version "2.0" has been mentioned off and on for 5+ years as the "next, amazing version of DSpace". Therefore "DSpace 2.0" is sometimes perceived to have a lot of expectations around it (especially in terms of what features it must have to be considered "2.0").
2. The potential misperception that "1.x" versioning sounds like DSpace may not be as mature or stable as it really is. Obviously DSpace has been around since 2002, and has over 1000 institutions using it worldwide (which speak to the maturity and stability of the system). But, some may feel higher numbered releases sound as though they are more mature.

Please add your own proposals on version numbering here....

This seems to me like an ideal candidate for convergence with other members of the duraspace community. Differing to a wider policy both stops the conversation and is says a lot about the our future plans for the project as a whole. (stuart yeates)