I’d like to propose the next Foreman version to be 2.0. We had a discussion and we failed to come to conclusion and I am scared reaching out to 1.20 because that’s terrible version number to work with.
In short, I proposed to bump the version for nothing, it’s not unusual in the industry. But folks preferred to pick a version based on “bigger features”. Several features were discussed (Rails 5 upgrade, dropping V1 API, vertical menu, taxonomies refactoring, hostgroup provisioning, extracting puppet code into plugin). Half of the features were delivered in 1.17 and/or 1.18, but yet we haven’t met to any conclusion and things stayed unchanged.
I am sure this will go back to discussion about features, which is not my intention at all, so why don’t we create a poll that could help to decide? Is it 1.19 or 1.20 or want to continue with the current versioning scheme?
Create a Discourse poll for easy tracking if you would like, the feature discussion is guaranteed when discussing this topic due to a significant number of people (myself included) believe we should change the version when there is large user facing change.
Maybe after that poll, if the outcome is “no”, we can then discuss when we should make 2.0 and what feature(s) we need and actively start working towards making that happen.
I agree with you that we should make 2.0 soon (for mostly the same reasons), but I also think it should come with a significant change like Highly Available Smart Proxies or something else.
I voted for 1.20. Experience has shown that time flies by and we need some time to prepare big changes. This should give us sufficient time to decide on some bigger incompatible changes. This means we can have the discussions during the 1.19 timeframe and implement them after.
I voted keep as is. IMO there’s nothing inherently wrong about 1.xx. Moreover, I can see how we could be looking at Foreman 2.0 in a medium-term timeframe, especially if we move our installation process to be containers.
I voted for 1.20 -> 2.0. Operationally, I tend to stand on the odd numbered versions of Foreman, so the vote was partially self serving. That said, the even/odd thing seems even more odd when renaming an odd version as an even one.
Visually, moving 1.20 to 2.0 is just a decimal point shift and truncating the 10s digit.
We have 16 votes so far, 44 percent want to carry on with the current versioning scheme, but majority want a change. Out of the two, 1.20 is the winner. That’s my interpretation so far.
