Hi,
Say you are December 23rd this year. 11.12 was done on December 1rst. The last bugfix of the year necessary due to some library bug. It can't be completed this day, everyone leaves until January 1rst. It is released January 2nd. Waiting behind the major release everyone has been working on. How do you name this bugfix ?
12.01 11.12 2011.8 (8th bug fix) 2011.h 11.13 11.12b
Last time someone suggest me shortening dates was back in 1985, to save 2 octets for each date. That was a trick a friend gave me, insider advice. So 1985 became 85, who could believe the program would survive the hardware. So hopes and virtuous release cycle are nice but IMO it is better to first reach such cycles and then enforce it in names. Otherwise it may fire back.
I hope to see Inkscape around on 2111 :)
-Bruno
Bruno Winck Email: bwinck@...2632... Blog: http://www.kneaver.com/blog Kneaver Corp http://www.kneaver.com/ Twitter:http://twitter.com/kneaver SKYPE:brunowinck PH: +1 (415) 749 5850 CELL: +1 (415) 513 3160
-----Original Message----- From: Josh Andler [mailto:scislac@...400...] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 11:03 PM To: Johan Engelen Cc: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] versioning scheme, take 2
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Johan Engelen <jbc.engelen@...2592...> wrote:
On 21-6-2011 19:04, Josh Andler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Winck<bw@...2632...> wrote:
Hi,
If you retain the year.month scheme I have the impression that keeping the year as 2011 as opposed to 11 is more self explanatory. Many users could just not realize that 11 is the year and stay using 11.03 until 2015. Sure it's longer.
Honestly, if people need the full year in the version number, chances are they let all of their software get out of date and it won't matter to them anyway. If we were to have a sophisticated update system, sure we could be like Microsoft and do "Inkscape 2011" so we could do only one major update a year and they'd just get all the bug fixes quarterly or as needed. However, since we don't have that ability, with 2011.10, the .10 is then automatically ambiguous to that class of user. Something like 11.10 makes sense to those it matters to, and looks like a real version number of software to the common user.
Since it is meant as the year number, what is the advantage of _not_ writing the year in full? I vote for full year number, what comes behind the dot might as well be a, b, c... ('2011a', '2011b', ...)
I wouldn't be opposed to this. I'd like to see others chime in though. In general though, the first two digits aren't necessary because it is highly unlikely that Inkscape will be around in 2111.
About month. When will you apply the month number ? when you release ? so it means the release will be nameless until the very last moment and of course what about releasing 2012.01 when you are in december 2011. The benefit of service pack number is that 1 follows 0 whatever occurs.
Yes, month number will be month of release. Internally we are still using the old versioning scheme, so it isn't nameless. We're still working on 0.49 which will be 11.XX, then we will work on 0.50 which will be released as 12.X, an interim bugfix release which will use that month number as post decimal identification, then hopefully 0.51 will be 12.XX, etc.
I think the month number is a valid concern, e.g. for about screen contests. Mentioning the month seems a bit too fine granularity for me (why not mention the day?). I think just numbering them 1, 2, 3, or a, b, c is nicer.
Well, given that Ubuntu's versioning scheme is 11.04 & 11.10 for this years releases, this is why you get down to month. If after this cycle we can actually get on regular release cycles matching the libraries we use as well as the distributions that carry us on the Linux side, it will be a big win for users (and for the community as a whole... no more guessing when releases will be).
At this point, as far as features go, a number as low as 1 is an insult to the maturity of the software in many areas (svg compliance aside). Are LPEs a version 1 feature? Heck no! Our awesome filter effect system (powerful, albeit complicated)? Nope. The jump to a number starting with 11 is a realistic ballpark number properly reflecting the maturity and capabilities Inkscape has. A very simple question is, which would an average individual think is more powerful, Illustrator 15 (CS5) or Inkscape 1?
Just my .02
Cheers, Josh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel